Section 2 Overview of the European Union and its relationship to the UK

2.1 Brief history of the EU
The roots of the modern day EU can be traced back to the 1950’s. Post World War 2, the political and economic climate in main land Europe was still precarious.

The 1951 Treaty of Paris established the ‘European Coal and Steel Community’;
France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands were the members.
The ECSC came into force in 1954 and its aim was to rebuild the economies of post war Europe and promote broader integration in Europe.

By breaking down old hostilities between states, particularly France and Germany, the member states could unite in the face of threats to security posed by the Cold War.

The six members of the ECSC went on to create the European Economic Community in 1958.

The EEC was more complex than the ECSC; its aim was to allow freer movement of goods, people, money and services within the community.

The EEC planned to develop a single market, a common agricultural policy and a common external tariff on goods coming into the Community.

In 1973 membership of the EEC expanded; Britain, Ireland and Denmark joined; Greece, Portugal and Spain joined in the 1980s; Austria, Finland and Sweden joined in 1995. The fall of the Berlin Wall led to East Germany becoming part of the EEC in 1990.

The EEC became known as the European Union (EU) following the signing of the ‘Treaty on European Union’ in 1992.

The enlargement of the EU in 2004 will include several former communist bloc states and membership will increase to 25. It is hoped Romania and Bulgaria will be ready to join the EU by 2007.Turkey is keen to join the EU but, despite making progress, does not yet meet all of the criteria for joining.

As a result of the enlargement, the population of the EU will grow from 370 million to 470 million in 2004.

1952 BELGIUM FRANCE ITALY LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS WEST GERMANY
1973 DENMARK GREAT BRITAIN IRELAND
1981-86 GREECE PORTUGAL SPAIN
1990 EAST GERMANY
1995 AUSTRIA FINLAND SWEDEN
2004 CYPRUS CZECH REPUBLIC ESTONIA HUNGARY LATVIA LITHUANIA MALTA POLAND SLOVAKIA SLOVENIA

2.2 How the EU works
The three main decision making institutions of the EU are:

The European Parliament, elected by EU citizens to represent them;
The Council of the European Union, (the Council of Ministers) representing individual member states;
The European Commission, upholding the interests of the Union as a whole.

Together, these three institutions are responsible for the policies and laws that apply throughout the EU.

To find out more go to http://europa.eu.int/institutions/index_en.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/europe/2001/inside_europe/eu_institutions/default.stm

Presidents and prime ministers of member states and their parliaments must agree to the treaties governing the rules and regulations of the institutions.

Generally, it is the Commission that proposes new EU laws and the Parliament and Council who adopt them.

The European Ombudsman protects EU citizens and organisations against mismanagement.
There are also other agencies specialising in certain areas, such as; science, technology and management.

Each member state takes a turn at presiding over the EU for six months.

Four times a year, heads of state and governments of EU members meet with the President of the European Commission to agree and review overall EU policy. This is known as ‘The European Council’ (not to be confused with ‘The Council of the Europe’ or ‘The Council of the EU’) and is the ultimate policy making body in the EU, these meetings are often referred to as ‘summits’.

‘The Council of Europe’ is not an EU institution; it has 44 members (including the EU members) and is an intergovernmental institution set up in 1949. The Council of Europe is concerned with human rights, diversity and social problems.
For more information visit http://www.coe.int/DefaultEN.asp

‘The European Court of Human Rights’ was set up to enable citizens to exercise their rights, as set out in the ‘European Convention on Human Rights’ which was drawn up by The Council of Europe.
For more information visit http://www.coe.int/T/E/Human_rights

The existing process of decision making is complicated and disbanded, with many different institutions involved. With the enlargement of the EU in 2004 this will become even more problematic.

Negotiations for a constitution have been underway for some time, with the aim of streamlining the decision making process.

‘The European Convention’ was set up to consider how to improve the way Europe works.

The convention recommended that existing EU powers should be made easier to understand and amalgamated under one umbrella.

The former French president, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, chaired the committee responsible for drawing up a draft constitution. It was intended to adopt the constitution during a summit in December 2003. Unfortunately the summit failed to adopt the new constitution as the 250 page draft document was unpopular with many. There were also arguments about the voting system, with France and Germany demanding a more proportionate (in relation to population size) representation than other nations, such as; Spain and Poland.

The draft constitution proposes that by 2014 a majority, representing 60% of the EU’s population, must support EU laws.

Although it has been reported that Spain, Germany and Poland were open to compromises, France remained unyielding.

This unwillingness of President Jacques Chirac of France to negotiate may be explained by his enthusiasm to form a ‘core Europe’, headed by France and Germany, when the enlargement takes place in 2004.

Tony Blair demanded concessions that all aspects of EU foreign policy, tax and social security policy should remain subject to national vetoes. This antagonised federalists.

There are no immediate plans to reopen negotiations over the constitution but there will be a summit in March 2004 to see how the land lies.

2.3 The EU & the UK.
Britain joined the EEC in 1973 (then referred to as the ‘Common Market’), along with Denmark and Ireland. Norway had also been accepted but following a national referendum withdrew their application.
The existing members of the EEC at the time were Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands and West Germany. They had formed an alliance in the 1950’s to rebuild their economies following World War 2.

British views on membership of the EEC were mixed. There were concerns that it marked the beginning of the end for the British nation.

Post war Britain still viewed itself as an imperial world power and until 1956 did not feel the desire to form closer ties with Europe. Britain’s economic base had not been damaged to the same extent as European nations’.

It was feared joining Europe would damage Britain’s global economic ties with her former Empire. As British colonies such as India and Pakistan were granted independence it became clear that Britain no longer enjoyed the status it once had as a world power.

The 1956 ‘Suez Crisis’ forced a wedge between Britain and the USA who had previously enjoyed a special relationship.
Global economic and political issues were being dominated by the USA and USSR in the Cold War climate.

In 1960 Britain signed the Stockholm Convention which founded the European Free Trade Association.

The EFTA was an exercise aimed at promoting free trade but without the economic and political integration of the EEC.

Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland also signed up to EFTA at the Stockholm Convention. Unlike the EEC, membership was voluntary, rather than contractual and was run by a Council of Ministers who only met 2 or 3 times a year.

Although EFTA did reduce tariffs, its long term economical achievements were not as good as the EEC’s.

In 1961 Britain applied to join the EEC, as it became increasingly apparent that political influence in Europe lay with the EEC. One of the stumbling blocks of EFTA was its member’s reliance on trading with the EEC rather than other EFTA members, Denmark and Ireland also applied to join the EEC in 1961, as did Norway in 1962.

Negotiations between Britain and the EEC began in 1962, although at first the negotiations appeared to be going in favour of Britain, the French President at the time, De Gaulle, began to obstruct Britain’s membership.

De Gaulle resented the British lack of enthusiasm for European integration during the early 1950’s and felt he had been denied equal status during wartime summits of allied leaders.
Europeans were also suspicious of Britain’s relationship with the USA and were worried that British membership would bring with it a stronger American influence over Europe.

France and Germany signed a new treaty in 1963 and vetoed the British application, along with Denmark’s and Ireland’s.

De Gaulle vetoed another British application in 1967 but by 1969 he had resigned. In 1972 Britain, Denmark and Ireland had their applications accepted at the third attempt. Norway’s application was also successful at this time.

With the history of animosity between Britain and other members of the EU, particularly France and Germany, it is perhaps not surprising that British opinions on membership of the EU have tended towards scepticism.

It was a Conservative government, headed by Edward Heath that successfully applied to join the EEC; the Labour government who replaced Heath’s held a referendum over continued membership and the public voted to stay in.

Labour and Conservative political parties have remained divided over the issue of Europe with only the Liberal Democrats consistently expressing a desire for closer ties with Europe.

European issues caused so many divisions in the Conservative government that a Chancellor, Deputy Prime Minister and then Mrs. Thatcher herself. were forced to resign. Her successor, John Major continued to face conflict over the issue.

The Thatcher and Major governments were opposed to the idea of European domination over the state in a federal Europe. They felt that their contributions to the EEC budget were disproportionate to the benefits for Britain.

There was also a fear of a loss of sovereignty for Britain and that British economic policy would be handed over to Brussels.

The 1992 Maastricht treaty was intended to be a step towards creating a federal Europe but, John Major vetoed the idea and instead, it focused on creating a closer union in Europe.
Britain chose to opt out of the single currency for Europe and other members were of the opinion that they should proceed towards a closer union without British participation.

As the longest serving twentieth century Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher had introduced radical changes to the running of the British economy and social welfare. Many European states followed Britain’s lead in the 1980s to privatise state owned industries and services and increase free market enterprise and competition.

Most of the EU economies have experienced a transition over fifty years, from agricultural to industrial to present day service based, with globalisation changing trading links.

Western Europe has experienced economic growth since the Second World War, particularly in the area known as the economic heartland which includes England’s South East and part of the Midlands.
There are also areas of depressed industrial regions; including the English East Midlands and South Wales.

In May 1997, Labour won a general election and took office from the Conservatives. This was a popular development with other EU members.

The Blair government signed up to the Social Charter and the Social Chapter and it appeared they would enjoy a closer relationship with Europe. However, despite this new relationship with Europe, the current Chancellor has continually declined to join the single currency, suggesting he will reconsider when the British economy is ready.

Euro-scepticism has been a consistent theme in British politics since 1945 and seems likely to remain a contentious issue. It appears British governments have been reluctant to concede political power to Europe, although they have forged closer economic and trade links.Tony Blair has been under pressure to hold a referendum on the European constitution, if he wants to retain European parliament seats. So far he has resisted.

The Euro-sceptic press are very critical of the draft constitution, claiming it will end 1,000 years of British history.

The breakdown of the negotiations over the constitution fuelled criticisms of EU politics and the potential difficulties when it enlarges to 25 members. Labour MP’s claim that the delay is welcome because more time is needed to negotiate for a constitution that is acceptable to the British public. The sticking point seems to be the French and German suggestion of a two speed Europe; those who disagree with their policies would be left behind. Britain remains opposed to the notion of a federal ‘United States of Europe’ with the implications that may hold significance for national sovereignty and defence policies.

2.4 EU social policy.

The European Economic and Social Committee was founded in 1957 under the Treaty of Rome and is the voice of civil society for the EU. It is an advisory body representing employers, trade unions, farmers, consumers and other groups. It defends these groups’ interests in policy discussions with the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. Any decisions on economic and social policy must be discussed with the Committee and it also has the authority to raise other issues it considers important.

The number of ESC members for each EU member state roughly reflects the size of its population.

EU governments nominate members but, the ESC is completely independent of politics.

Members are appointed for 4 years and may be reappointed. The Committee elects its President and 2 Vice-Presidents for 2 year terms.

The Committee is split into 6 subcommittees, each responsible for a particular policy area.

Number of ESC Members for Current and Prospective EU Member States
GERMANY FRANCE ITALY UK	24
SPAIN	21
BELGIUM GREECE NETHERLANDS AUSTRIA PORTUGAL SWEDEN	12
DENMARK IRELAND FINLAND	9
LUXEMBOURG	6
TOTAL (2003)	222
POLAND	21
ROMANIA	15
BULGARIA CZECH REP HUNGARY	12
LITHUANIA SLOVAKIA	9
ESTONIA LATVIA SLOVENIA	6
CYPRUS	6
MALTA	5
TOTAL 2009	344

Despite the existence of the ESC, social policy was often overlooked by European leaders prior to the 1980s. As the Community grew, the disparities in levels of wealth and living standards between regions grew, by 1996 the richest regions were five times richer than the poorest.

The 1986 Single European Act was an important step towards European integration and subsequently placed more emphasis on social policy.
The Social Charter of 1989 promoted the free movement of workers, fair pay, better living and working conditions.

Social issues are now one of the core policy areas of the EU. Governments of member states are required to adhere to EU law on issues such as health and safety at work, parental leave, public health, disability and old age.
Regional disparities still exist and the gap between the highest and lowest income levels in the EU is double that of the USA.
High unemployment levels are still causing concern in the EU and the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam promoted the objective of high employment as well as incorporating the Social Charter into the treaties.

Welfare provision in Europe has many different forms and it would be difficult for the EU to negotiate a trans-national welfare state.

Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, Finland and Denmark have ‘work-centered’, full employment policies; childcare provision is extensive and state employment is high. This is costly and tax rates are high.

Germany places more emphasis on the ‘ right to work’ rather than poverty relief. Unemployment benefit is compensatory and reflects wage levels.

Britain has universal benefits rather than compensatory ones. Benefit levels are at minimum levels and recipients have low status as citizens.

Other nations such as Spain, Italy, Greece and Ireland have, historically, been poor states with welfare provided by the community, church and family, rather than the state.

The inclusion of former communist systems in the forthcoming enlargements of the EU will complicate matters further. Many of the current EU 15 members are concerned about being obliged to provide welfare to the new EU citizens.

In 1997 the Commission published ‘Agenda 2000’ to fund the smooth transition of new members to the EU, by stabilising their markets and economies. However, the goodwill of current members has been shaken by their own economic problems and increasing unemployment. Tony Blair is not prepared to give up Britain’s national veto over its social security policy whereas, other leaders are keen to adopt a single Social Community.
There is increasing concern among members about the declining childbirth rates and increasing elderly population. Traditional family structures have changed along with patterns of caring for the elderly.

Disagreements over citizenship and social policies contributed to the breakdown of the summit to adopt a constitution in December 2003.

2.5 The EU constitution
What is a CONSTITUTION?

‘The set of fundamental rules governing the politics of a nation or sub national body’.
(Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics)

Although the above concept of a constitution came from the British Revolution of 1688, Britain does not have a written constitution.

Most other nations have written constitutions, these are usually short and unspecific but well established.

The most famous constitution is that of the USA, dating back to 1787 and containing only 8,000 words. The written constitution is upheld by all the existing states except Rhode Island.

The American constitution does not include rules about what must be done, apart from procedures for electing Presidents and Congress, but what may not be done and how amendments can be made to it. Other constitutions, such as that of France, tend to be longer than the American one.

Most constitutions are harder to amend than ordinary laws.

Many constitutions guarantee certain rights for citizens, for example, individual French citizens have ‘the duty to work and the right to employment’.

A typical trait of most constitutions is the lack of information on how citizens who feel deprived of their rights can seek restitution.

British parliament relies on the unwritten understanding that no parliament will repeal the 1911 Parliament Act that requires a general election every five years.
Unwritten understandings, however deeply entrenched, can be precarious and as society changes may no longer be upheld.

Although there are calls for a written constitution for Britain, there are issues around constitutional decisions. Many are reluctant to shift responsibility from elected politicians to unelected lawyers. With a deep rooted reluctance to adopt a written constitution in Britain, it is understandable that there is also a strong aversion to an EU constitution in Britain. The British government is facing increasing pressure to hold a referendum over the issue of the EU constitution.

2.6 EU citizenship
Every person holding a nationality of a Member State is a Citizen of the Union. A citizenship of the Union was established by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. It is included in Part Two (Articles 17–22) of the EC Treaty. The EU citizenship complements national citizenship of the Member States and does not replace it. Citizens of the Union enjoy rights conferred by the Treaty and they are subject to duties imposed thereby.

The importance of citizenship of the Union lies in the fact that the citizens of the Union have genuine rights under Community law. The core rights conferred by citizenship under Part Two of the EC Treaty are:
• freedom of movement and the right of residence within the territory of the Member States;
• right to vote and stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament and at municipal elections in the Member State of residence;
• right to diplomatic and consular protection;
• right of petition to the European Parliament; and
• right to refer to the Ombudsman.

2.7 Education for the participation of young people in local and regional life
Youth participation at local and regional levels is of the utmost importance. The preamble of the Revised European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life (http://www.coe.int/T/E/Clrae/_5._Texts/5._Conventions_and_charters/young.asp#TopOfPage ) strongly asserts that “the active participation of young people in decisions and actions at local and regional level is essential if we are to build more democratic, inclusive and prosperous societies.”
Ms Maud de Boer Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, has recently declared at the Conference of European ministers responsible for local and regional government (Budapest, 24-25 February 2005) that “in a democratic society, the political process begins at a grassroots level, laying down the foundation for the democratic edifice as a whole, without which democratic stability of society may be in question”. Thus, “local and, where appropriate, regional authorities have a crucial role to play in the democratic fabric of our societies”.

Young people are citizens of the municipalities and regions in which they live just as much as people of other age groups. Therefore, they must have access to all forms of participation in society. This is necessary not only because young people also have the right to a say, but because a society can really be democratic only if it allows and in fact succeeds in realising the active participation of all its citizens.
Now, if it is at grassroots level that education in democracy, democratic participation, and commitment to democratic principles begin, it is also at this level that apathetic attitudes, loss of interest in being involved in democratic processes such as elections, and mistrust in government begin. Facing today’s growing disillusion towards democracy, it is urgent to launch news initiatives to favour young peoples participation at local and regional levels.

The Revised European Charter on the Participation of Young People in Local and Regional Life can be very useful in favouring young people participation at local level. It sets the main principles of young people participation, identifies relevant sectors of action, puts forward the proper instruments and identifies the appropriate structures or arrangements enabling the institutional participation of young people in local life. In this sense, the Charter is a reference that cannot be ignored and a pertinent instrument that should inspire concrete actions, particularly in the framework of the European Year of Citizenship though Education.

Guidance Document

Section 1 The project

Section 3 - Training for schools

Section 4 - Resourcing the curriculum