1. Intergovernmentalism: EU as classical power politics (IR) nothing new
2. neofunctionalism: decomposition of old nations (Haas)
3. governmental approach (not yet theory)

competition of theories

> value of theory depends on issue

1. sectoral (policy fields)
2. vertical (transfer of power to supranational institutions)
3. spatial (enlargement of EU)

tax + social spending remain national policy area

functionalists: yes, transfers preferences of states + creates spillover

intergovernmentalist: no, states remain in control

process in which integration starts in a specific field and as consequence related fields need to be integrated

> common market might lead to center of economic activity in some ares > regional policy to counter effects

> common market might create race to the bottom > environmental + social policy to counter this

economic benefits will be realised > leads to furher integration (but what if ECONOMIC integration is fulfilled)

transfer of power is a conscious decision by MS governments, classical IR approach

> eg regional policy as bargaining concession to Britain, not spillover

IG: controlled by MS, act within framework accepted by MS

NF: give initiatives, broker deals, eg. CJ reinforced competences through rulings, euro industrialist roundtable demanded more integrations

NF: integration transform domestic interests

IG: purely domestic preferences are pursued

1. integration isn't semi-automatic (setbacks during integration)
2. nations retain competences and try to protect some interests
3. depicts singular European experience (not replicable) N=1 problem
4. does not provide reason for start of integration

• focus primarily on treaties (singular acts, big bang)
• neglects day to day politics in between treaties > NF good to cover up
• COM/CJ extremely limited

structure of EU basically fixed (is that so?), no need to discuss grand design, outlook

> no superstate

> no collapse

>>> focus on the way EU is governed, EU neither IO nor MS, yet governs citizens of MS

questions:

function, coordination of vatious levels, impacts on MS, democratic legitimacy

view decision making in a specific case

> role of administration

> implementation of EU politivs

Multi-level governance:

> coordination of several levels

partnership across several level (eg reg. policy)

transformation of MS due to EU (to what extent)

> mechanisms of influence (incentives, constraints)

erosion of national self-determination

> less democracy in EU institution

> increase of EP power typical reaction

Moravcsik: does not exis, MS in control

others: exists, key problem: social infrastructure missing)

1. not full theory
2. few explanatory ambitions
3. n=1 problem remains

• ensure peace (fragmentation of Europe) by overcoming french-german rivalry
• containing / controlling development of Germany
• containing eastern Europe / USSR influence
• revising the role of Europe in world (de-colonization)
• rescue of nation state (Milward)
• economic (Moravcsik)
• peace/german question/economic necesities/ competitiveness vis-a-vis superpowers (Loth)

1950: Schumann Declaration

1951: Signing ECSC (pooling of resources, govts cede certain powers > structure of EU laid)

yet, build-up, also consider:

• interwar years
• Marshall Plan
• NATO
• formation Council of Europe
• EDC / EPC failure

• It marked the birth of Europe
• It made war between Member States impossible
• It encouraged world peace
• It would transform Europe by a 'step by step' process (building through sectoral supranational communities) leading to the unification of Europe democratically, including both East and West Europe separated by the Iron Curtain
• It created the world's first supranational institution and
• the world's first international anti-cartel agency
• It created a single market across the Community
• This, starting with the coal and steel sector, would revitalise the whole European economy by similar community processes
• It would improve the world economy and the developing countries, such as those in Africa

• security: set up as western European sphere of influence against communism
• shape: retained nation state but ceded some competences
• selective, sectoral approach: failure of EDC / EPC led to integration in economy

1957

• establishing EEC (fragile start)
• establishing Euratom (considered more important)

Fouchet-Plan I + II: intergovernmental alternative to supranational EEC

65/66 empty chair crisis

> cemented veto opportunity

> vital to understand historic structure of EU

time of eurosclerosis and stagnation, no major initiatives brought forward, but:

1970: European Political Cooperatiojn (EPC - foreign policy)

1974 Paris: European Council set up

1979: direct EP elections

1979: European Monetary System (EMS), currency snake (Bretton Woods abandoned 1971)

larger community, but more intergovernmental tendency

The chief features of the Bretton Woods system were an obligation for each country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate by tying its currency to the U.S. dollar and the ability of the IMF to bridge temporary imbalances of payments.

On August 15, 1971, the United States unilaterally terminated convertibility of the dollar to gold. This brought the Bretton Woods system to an end and saw the dollar become fiat currency.^[1] This action, referred to as the Nixon shock, created the situation in which the United States dollar became a reserve currency used by many states.

European Summit Fointainebleau (UK reduction) Brussels/Milano Summits (common market extension (single market)

economic upswing + surge of cold war (martial law PL, Afganistan invasion by USSR)

SEA 1987:

• single market until 31.12.1992
• EC mentioned first time
• change of decision making
• closer cooperation

end of dictatorships in GR, POR, ES

primarily political stability to Western Europe + economic benefits for accession countries

• incremental
• crises as motors for integration, but only if economic growth as well
• significance of external developments