Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
explaining the evolution of integration - Coggle Diagram
explaining the evolution of integration
the course of integration
unpredictable
no inevitability, states showed little interest
ECSC formed
economically to rehabilitate Western Europe
influence how WG recovered
trying to overcome decades of conflict between the states
TOP created Economic Defence Community which failed as states showed little/no interest
series of re-launches
EDC was disaster, too controversial and close to WW2, states learnt from this
empty chair crisis in 60s lead to relaunch in the 70s
SEA relaunched in aftermath of 80s British Budgetary Q
quicker economically than politically
accumulated legislation developed quickly as states realised if they pooled together they have greater econ presence
limit to how much sovereignty states want to pool
int as a process not a final objective
historical drivers and shapers
failure of past European pol/sec governance, learnt to not target areas of high politics
historical relationships
F and G, difficult relationship, central pivot for int
overcoming history has been a key challenge
as joined EEC still had relationships with overseas colonies
strategic cultures
EU existed influence through econ powers
member states all had diff strategic cultures
G adverse to the use of foreign policy but F traditionally use force
brits
and int
refused to join early attempts, ECSC and TOR neglected
looked for alternatives, British position held weight, recognised alt institutions were needed and G and F relations were vital
early 1960s asked to join EEC
F rejected UK twice, scared UK would be a Trojan horse
EEC was effective at changing trade patterns, trade was becoming more important
single market was powerful
1973 got in but soon leaving: reluctant European
not a massive EU identity in Britain
inc proponent of EU global engagement and Euro-atlanticism
commitment to free trade
support for foreign policy, coorp between like minded states
have to be a fair player within EU and key states
BREXIT will bring about new relationship, security and trade
france
and int
gd power perspective in role of the word, always favoured int for econ and pol control gains
looking to revive F state but options limited
F know WG doesn't want to lead and UK are skeptical about it, F could lead?
sacrificing small amount of sovereignty they gain economically and politically
ambiguous about depth and breadth of int
de Gaulle liked intergovernmental approach, wanted EU as 3rd power
F commitment governed by national interest
how much sovereignty should be pulled?
strong sponsor of FG tandum
FG relationship most important to the F
F wanted control, then they could partner with WG
seen EU as balancer of US power
sees int as alternative to US power
90s F thought West Europe could become military arms of EU
fear shift of power eastwards
didnt want the balance of power to go east after CW
eastern countries have a stronger relationship with G
wants to steer int from within
Germany
and int
strong postwar supporter
had nothing to loose
by committing it shows the willingness of G to restrict G power
reconstruct itself as 'good european'
have to show they aren't repeating the past
proved WG has changed of basis of commitment to integration
supporters of deeper and wider int