On the transformation of European governance

Following on from this post, the below is the second mini-essay of my final assignment for the Governing Europe module:
‘Which is the better description of governance in the European Union since the Treaty of Rome: ‘transformation’ or ‘continuing tradition’?’

In examining this question, it is important for us to outline some of the key methods in which governance in the European Union has been transformed from the group of independent nation states that existed in 1945. We must then discuss some of the governance traditions, which have continued during the development of the EU. Finally, we should weigh the relative strength of each of these descriptions of European governance.

Firstly, this essay seeks to examine the ways in which governance in the European Union has been transformed since the Treaty of Rome. There are three key transformations in European governance during that time. Firstly, the reduction in sovereignty of individual member states must be examined. Secondly, the development of European Institutions charged with governance of a range of areas must be explored. And finally, this essay will look at the development of the EU as a supranational entity.

In contrast, we must examine how some of the traditions of governance remain unchanged in the European Union. Firstly, despite some of the above developments, the nation state remains the primary vehicle of governance in the European Union. And secondly, resistance to any expansion of the remit of European governance must be examined.

In investigating the ways in which European governance has been transformed in the period since 1945, we must firstly look at the reduction in sovereignty of the nation state. This has occurred in two ways: an exchange of sovereignty in return for the accrual of other benefits, and a pooling of sovereignty in place of the somewhat anarchic relations between individual member states. An example of the former lies in the development of the single economic market, which has allowed the expansion of individual economies, while an example of the latter can be found in the peaceful relations between European countries since 1945.

Governance of the European Union has also been greatly transformed by the development of European Institutions such as the European Central Bank and the European Court of Justice. In both cases, member states have allowed the governance of their respective areas (monetary policy and the adjudication of the rights of citizens respectively) to be transferred to a European level as suitable institutions were proposed. While also representing something of a shift in sovereignty, more importantly these developments mark a new faith among nation states in the ability of European Institutions to govern the affairs of their citizens.

Finally, we must look at how European governance has developed, not only from a number of independent nation states to an intergovernmental form of governance, but onwards to its current development towards a supranational method of governance. In 1945, the area currently known as the European Union could only be viewed as a collection of individual nation states. With the development of the European Coal and Steel Community, European governance began to move in an intergovernmental direction, with co-operation on a number of areas of common interest. Finally, we have seen a move towards supranationalism, with economic and political union at an advanced stage of integration, and monetary union complete among the majority of member states.

Between the dilution of national sovereignty, the strengthening of European institutions, and the moves towards supranationalism in the European Union, it is clear that there has been enormous transformation within the governance of the European Union. Nevertheless, some governance traditions have remained strong in the period since the Treaty of Rome.

Firstly, despite the transformations outlined above, the nation state remains the primary vehicle for governance within EU member states. Enormous areas of policy, such as taxation and immigration control, remain largely in the control of the Governments of individual member states. Though unity has been achieved in some areas, there are continual backlashes against such unity, both by those with nationalistic identities, and those who would prefer to see the European Union embrace the diversity of its membership rather than striving towards greater unity.

The resistance of many states and individuals to any expansion of the remit of the European Union is another clear indicator of the continuing tradition of some areas of European governance. While the EU enjoyed overwhelming support in the early part of its existence, there has been a substantial rise in nationalistic and anti-European sentiment in recent years. An example of this could be found in the recent defeat of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, where many arguments were made against any further centralisation of European power.

The retention of national governance and the resistance to any further deepening of the European Project are both examples of continuing tradition in relation to European governance. However, it is clear from the changes in sovereignty, the development of European Institutions and the move towards supranationalism, that transformation better describes the governance of the European Union since 1945.