Introduction
Different literatures have postulated how the process of Europeanization has been perceived with great enthusiasm by some people, while others have perceived it with intense skepticism (Smits p.1).
Since the advent of the call and much effort exhibited to the European integration process, both Europhiles and Eurosceptics in almost equal measure have argued their case that some time have motivated vigorous debates about the very nature of this European project (Smits p.1). What needs to be known is the fact that both the Euroscepticism and Europhilia base and pursue their different particular views of how largely citizens interests should be represented.
According to many citizens of the countries that have formed the European Union, views and positions taken by leading advocates of Europhiles and Eurosceptics have influenced the positions taken by the citizens of the different countries of European Union. Within the European Union jurisdiction the key issues that have led to existence of these two schools of view revolves largely around the economy, politics, legal, financial system, identity, culture, and sometimes language.
The point of note here is that European integration process has largely been perceived and regarded to be possible after integration of the above highlighted key aspects. Subsequently, the above highlighted key aspects constitute the very aspects that have divided citizens of EU into Europhiles and Eurosceptics, which each group arguing its case decisively for or against Europeanization.
Therefore, the essence of this research paper is to explore in detail ‘Who are the Europhiles and who are the Euroskeptics’ within the perspective of the above-outlined aspects. Further issues of national identity will also be explored and how it has further influenced Europhilia and Euroscepticism ideas and dreams.
Who are Europhiles and Eurosceptics?
Definition of these two terms has been varied and multiple. For example, Euroscepticism has no one single usage where in some cases, the term has been used to refer to the lack of enthusiasm over the increasing powers of the European Union that exists, especially within the British public debate (Harmsen and Spiering p.15).
Other people have adopted a more broad definition, which decompounds and perceive Euroscepticism to constitute negative view of the process of Europeanization. The kind of position taken by this later group is one that has criticized EU policies and their position has been to oppose vehemently the EU enlargement where they express fears that with European integration then pursuit of social justice will be endangered (Smits p.2).
Another group has defined Euroscepticism as “states’ fear of losing sovereignty and the subsequent consequences this has for the legitimacy of decisions that directly touch upon the rights and obligations of citizens” (Smits p.2). In other words, Eurosceptics express worry and fear about the diminution of national autonomy and the leaking away of the national parliaments’ power as democratic law-making institutions.
The general fear for Eurosceptics is that of the EU turning and evolving into a bureaucratic super-state that has powers to decide upon the numerous issues that affect its citizens in an undemocratic way (Smits p.2).
Overall, Eurosceptics are characterized by their tendency of: being against EU integration, defense of the national state sovereignty, oppose EU federation, oppose globalization, oppose foreign immigrants, and are against multicultural for the national cultural identity, and lastly, many of them have become emphatic xenophobia and Islam-phobia (Arato and Kaniok p.46).
On the other hand, Europhiles constitute a group of European citizens who have expressed unequivocal support and confidence in the European Union integration (Arato and Kaniok p.41). The position taken by Europhiles is that EU integration has more benefits to European citizens as compared to individual national sovereignty, which has tended to block developments in the regions (Hoogmoed p.1).
Europhiles point numerous reasons within the economy, political, information, trade, financial, governance, climate and environmental management, and many more others as key aspects that are likely to benefit the people of European upon integration. The argument of this group is that national cultures and identities should not play as barrier to the integration of the EU countries.
Europhiles counter the position of Eurosceptics by observing some of the notable positive impacts of EU integration. For instance, Europhiles content that, with integration of EU, there will be a strong economy, which in turn will lead to alleviation of poverty among member countries (Hoogmoed p.1). At the same time, Europhiles are confident that with Integration of EU there will be removal of trade and legal barriers.
As a result, there will be more free movement of people between the nations without having to fulfill many strenuous legal requirements. Further, EU integration for Europhiles will enable integration of individual country military forces, a situation that will lead to availability of more and enough funds to modernize the military to perform to their extreme capacities (Hoogmoed p.1).
EU integration further is seen to important in making global citizens within the EU jurisdiction with elimination of national, cultural, and even religious differences. Crime issue is an aspect that is drawing attention in most parts of the world, and the issue is further aggravated by the advent of increasing and sophisticated terrorism.
As a way of countering and responding to these crime threats, Europhiles are convinced that integration of EU countries will results into establishment of a well trained and equipped police force that has the capacity to respond well to challenges of crime and other illegal activities (Hoogmoed p.1).
Cross-border and growth of a diverse human resource manpower is another element that characterize Europhilia where the belief is that with EU integration, there will be more highly trained human resource manpower who will be able to contribute to the economy growth of the EU countries.
Lastly, on overall Europhiles are confident that with EU integration there will be enhanced industrial development, there will be increased potential, new global business, the living standards of the people will increase, and there will be increased and improved human rights aspects (Hoogmoed p.1).
Creating European Identity: possibilities and challenges
The end of the Second World War had far-reaching impacts on the European countries where efforts were started to integrate majority of European countries with hope that such an initiative would results into prevention of future conflicts since the old rivalries would be diminished (Castano p.40).
This grand and ambitious process was in the leadership hands of the elites who at the same time owned the whole process and drew inspiration from the neo-functionalist approach (Castano p.40).
One key principle that was incorporated in the entire integration process rested on the idea that all citizens of EU member countries would in gradual process but inevitably “shift their loyalties away from their national government toward the European institutions, which were going to provide greater material benefits” (Castano p.40).
By the signing of the Maastricht treaty, Eurobarometer data indicated that Europeans had a positive perception that European integration process was a good thing (Castano p.40). Despite this positive perception, observation made is that it has not translated into national citizens of various European countries abandoning their national loyalty to embrace a common European identity.
It can be deduced that the call for European identity was untimely and very fast and was done before the existing constraints had been resolved, especially with regard to institutions (Castano p.40). The same data collected by Eurobarometer indicated that European institutions have experienced a slow but steady increase in their popular support though the acceptance level of the institutions is still low.
Integration process for EU has become standstill and there has been a constant call for improvement in the legitimacy of the EU, a situation that calls and requires fostering sense of belonging among the citizens of the national member states (Castano p.42). The common and wide misconception has been that with improved economic policies then this integration will be possible to be achieved, a notion that is not true at all.
Economic integration is perceived and even proving to be insufficient to instill a sense of belonging at the European level and some people have further argued that fostering European identity through formation of a single European cultural identity again is likely to fail.
Paramount reason given by these people is that it is actually diversity, which is needed for European integration and not homogeneity (Castano p.43). In order to realize some genuine integration for EU countries, more people and suggestions have been leveled against the need to establish itself as a possible self-representation at the collective level for its citizens.
In a 2006 opinion poll among the European citizens it became evident that majority of the citizens were satisfied with the economic developments that had taken place although pessimism remains over political integration (Aulich p.1).
The findings of the poll showed that the living standards in the major country members of EU was extraordinarily high, much higher that other regions of the globe, a situation that had led to expression of satisfaction among the member countries.
For instance, statistical data of the poll showed that 90 percent of Europeans perceived themselves to be happy in their current family life and 84 percent expressed satisfaction in their current occupation (Aulich p.1). Further, 90 percent expressed their confidence in the sovereignty of their countries, although some slight differences were noted among different member states (Aulich p.1).
According to these data and overall conviction among the European citizens, the EU has succeeded and achieved economic integration for the member states, and which to them is enough as far as the basis foundation of the EU is concerned. On overall, European citizens in their individual countries considers themselves to have achieved success, happiness, fulfillment, and satisfaction, and generally enjoy social and economic status hence no nudging need to preoccupy with needs of integration (Aulich p.1).
French and Dutch constitute two countries of EU, which rejected the Euro-constitution that advocated for political integration. The position and conviction of majority of citizens in these two countries was that their level of economic advancement has gone up and therefore do not see likelihood of any tangible benefits arising from EU integration to them (Aulich p.1).
Further, the conviction of the two countries was that with the growth and advancement of their economies any likelihood of integration especially with less developed countries had ability to lead to retardation in economic advancement as there will be need to sacrifice their current economic status and overall standards of living in order to compensate and uplift the benefits of the poorer nations (Aulich p.1).
In other words, political and legal integration of EU member states has been hampered by perception economic of member states will disintegrate instead of growing and it is an aspect that has largely influenced the voting behavior of citizens in the member countries.
Different reasons have been given as to why EU integration process has appeared to be a tall order and difficult. For a start, EU as an entity is seen to receive less attention as compared to individual nations in the media (Castano p.43). This particular aspect of featuring less in the media is an aspect that has relegated EU to sidelines as more citizens of EU pay more attention to their national identity.
The media at the same time, is seen to reinforce more national identity than European identity. Furthermore, it has been suggested that when EU receive media attention it is largely because of internal disputes between the representatives of its member states or the inability to reach a common position in international arena.
As it can seen the attention of the media to these aspects are not basically aimed at reinforcing European identity, in fact the aim is to portray the dysfunctional of EU hence making integration impossible in the minds of the citizens (Castano p.43).
Another reason that continues to undermine efforts of the EU at integrating has to with entitativity of the EU in international context, which has largely been undermined by the direct actions of individual governments.
For instance, these governments have engaged in actions that can be described and viewed to be circumventing and sometimes contradicting the position of EU, a situation that generally embarrass the European citizens (Castano p.43).
Lastly, the EU integration process is seen to get hindrance from a lack of geographical boundaries. This particular aspect has largely weakened the efforts of the EU to evolve and establish itself as a real entity. In sum, EU aspect is yet to become a psychological existence in the minds of its citizens, a situation that continue to weaken and play against the European identification.
Europhiles and Eurosceptics: which side seems to win?
Debate over the integration of the EU is likely not to disappear from the political elite and media any time soon and opposing sides are likely to be sustained. Nevertheless, many opinion polls across European citizens still portray a divided citizen group over the issue of integration.
There is no yet consensus as to how integration process should proceed or be facilitated, and members are much divided as to what should constitute the integration content.
As some members express confidence that political and legal integration can be achieved, other members are of the view that the basis of integration was to be realized through economy, which in turn has been achieved or fulfilled; hence, members should not be burdened by increased responsibility of working out a political and legal integration.
However, it should be noted that integration of political and legal structures and system of the EU chances appear to be scarce or just bleak due to existing numerous reasons. For example, national identity and national cultures have proved to be the strongest factors contributing to the un-realization of EU integration.
The national identity has superseded that of EU and member countries together with their citizens seem not to be ready to relinquish their paramount sovereignty to EU. Cultural differences have become evident as hindrance to EU integration process success as evidenced in the case of Turkey application for admission (Anonymous p.1).
Cultural differences manifests in different attitudes the citizens of different countries have over the EU, the different languages, where some citizens are opposed to the idea of creation of one language to unite member countries of EU (Anonymous p.1).
In addition, cultural differences in manifested in religious affiliations of different communities in different countries, existence of different interests that members see may not be addressed by the macro and mega institutions of the EU, existences of different laws that sometimes are designed on the cultural aspects of each country hence largely unique in nature.
Regulations regimes and systems among the EU member countries are totally different an aspect that might prove to be difficult to harmonize given that some countries have strong regulation mechanisms while others have largely weak mechanism (Anonymous p.1). Poverty levels among countries are another issue that poses danger to the integration of EU countries.
Different countries have manifested different levels of poverty and even some countries have come out to oppose integration on the basis that it will lead to their economies declining and standards of living ion their respective countries going down. Way of life, customs, and different political and administrative structures constitute another class of factors that continue to limit chances of EU integration.
Consideration of these factors it becomes clear that each country manifest different forms of ways of lives, societal and national norms and totally different political and administrative structures which cannot be merged into one structure bringing together the citizens of the countries.
Economic differences again constitute a set of factors that are perceived may block the likelihood of EU integration process from succeeding.
This economic difference are manifested in areas such as: different economic structures; different tax systems; labor costs; worker’s rights; different levels of wages, different social security contributions; welfare systems that are different; safety standards that are totally different; different environmental regulation mechanisms (Anonymous p.1).
Other notable differences in this category include different professional training schemes; different levels of economic standards, and lastly, the nature of state interference in economic activities also differ (Anonymous p.1). Last set of factors that hinder integration originate from geographical differences, whereby distance, climates, sizes of states, and landscape are seen to negatively contribute to the integration of EU member countries (Anonymous p.1).
Conclusion
Formation and calls for formation of European Union were met with greater enthusiasm, as members held broad vision of how such integration would benefit the county members. Nevertheless, after its establishment, many views have erupted as to whether the EU has the ability to tackle key issues facing its member countries.
This situation has led to emergence of two groups of people Europhiles and the Eurosceptics where each group has presented its case for or against intention to integrate the EU. Seen and the way it has been identified in the paper, integration of EU is likely no to be achieved very soon as more national identities and cultures are reinforced among member states.
Works Cited
Anonymous. European Integration: Reasons, Problems, and Criticism. Web.
Arato, Krisztina and Kaniok, Petr. Euroscepticism and European Integration. Zagreb: Political Science Research Centre.
Aulich, Sebastian. “United State of Europe?” European Courier. Web.
Castano, Emanuele. ‘European Identity: A Social-Psychological Perspective’, in Richard K. Herrmann, Thomas Risse and Marilynn B. Brewer (eds.), Transnational Identities: Becoming European in the EU. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Harmsen, Robert and Spiering, Menno. Euroscepticism: Party Politics, National Identity and European Integration. NY: Rodopi.
Hoogmoed, Sylvester. Integration of Europe: Europe in the Third Millennium. International Institute of Interdisciplinary Integration. Web.
Smits, Jan M. Beyond Euroscepticism: on the choice of legal regimes as empowerment of citizens. Utrecht Law Review. Web.