Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
European Union Background Guide
2
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
Table of Contents
Current Membership in the EU .................................................................. Page 3
Voting System ........................................................................................... Page 3-4
A History of the Formation of the EU ......................................................... Page 5-7
Topic 1: Economic Crisis in the European Union ......................................... Page 7-12
Topic 2: The Expansion of the European Union .......................................... Page 12-17
Topic 3: Illegal Immigration Within the European Union Territory ............. Page 18-22
3
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
Current Membership in the European Union:
Voting SystemThe Council of the European Union is to be comprised of delegates from the 27 European Union member states.
Voting Rights on Procedural MattersFor procedural matters and privileged motions, each member of the Council shall have one vote. A simple majority, unless otherwise specified, will be required to pass these motions.
Voting Rights on Resolutions and Matters of PolicyFor issues that deal directly with the policy of the Council, the member states will have weighted votes as follows:
Member State Population VotesGermany 81,757,595 29France 64,709,480 29United Kingdom 62,041,708 29Italy 60,397,353 29Spain 46,087,170 27Poland 38,163,895 27Romania 21,466,174 14Netherlands 16,576,800 13Greece 11,125,179 12Belgium 10,827,519 12Portugal 10,636,888 12Czech Republic 10,512,397 12Hungary 10,013,628 12Sweden 9,347,899 10Austria 8,372,930 10Bulgaria 7,576,751 10Denmark 5,547,088 7
AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFrance
GermanyGreece HungaryIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgMalta
NetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenUnited Kingdom
4
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
Member State Population VotesSlovakia 5,424,057 7Finland 5,350,475 7Ireland 4,450,878 7Lithuania 3,329,227 7Latvia 2,248,961 4Slovenia 2,054,119 4Estonia 1,340,274 4Cyprus 801,851 4Luxembourg 502,207 4Malta 416,333 3
TOTAL 501,078,836(62% is 310,668,878)
345(73.91% is 255)
Adoptions of Resolutions and Statements Regarding Matters of PolicyThe adoption of resolutions by the Council requires a Qualified Majority to pass. To pass a vote by Qualified Majority, the following conditions must be satisfied:
The resolution must have the support of 73.91% of the Council’s weighted votes (255 of 345).
A majority of member states (50% + 1) must support the resolution—with 27 countries voting, 14 votes in favour are required for a simple majority, and 18 for a two-thirds majority.
The countries supporting the resolution must represent at least 62% of the European Union’s population.
If a Qualified Majority is required, 91 votes against are enough to “block” the decision (this constitutes the “Blocking Minority”).
Roll Call VoteBecause of the inherent complexity of Qualified Majority voting, unless a resolution is deemed an Important Question, a roll call vote will take place. The name of each member nation shall be called during the vote, and each delegation shall announce its vote in response.
Important QuestionsImportant questions may include decisions delegates feel are too important to be left to a Qualified Majority vote. Examples of Important Questions may include matters of foreign policy, defence, judicial and police cooperation, and taxation. A decision of the Council on an Important Question requires unanimity. Only the Council may deem a resolution an Important Question. In some cases, the Chair will notify the Council that a resolution is to be considered an Important Question, without needing a motion to render it one. Additional voting rules may apply to these cases. A motion to make a resolution an Important Question is a privileged motion (such as a motion to recess, motion for reconsideration, etc.). Debate on such a motion shall be limited to two speakers in favour and two speakers against. At any time, the Chair may rule the request to label a resolution an Important Question out of order.
5
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
A History of the Formation of the European UnionThe European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)Although the federal state of Germany has a short history relative to its west European neighbours, it is especially rich. Germany has been a significant participant in the construction of a supranational body in Europe, from one of the earliest forms of European multilateral interaction. After the Second World War, when the reconstruction of the European economyand a peace among nations seemed necessary, the first European community was formed between France and West Germany, known as the European Coal and Steel Community.The French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman, proposed that Franco-German coal and steel production be moved under the purview of an organization from which other European countries could benefit. This choice was not only economic but also political, for these two rawmaterials were the foundation of the industry and power for the two nations. The political motive was the strengthening of Franco-German relations, and a desire to open the doorsto European integration. The six members (France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourgand the Netherlands) agreed on one hundred-or-so articles making up a complex but comprehensive plan for their organization. The Treaty establishing the ECSC was signed in Paris on April 18, 1951 and was enacted on July 24, 1952, with a limited life of 50 years. The Treatyexpired on 23 July 2002.
The EEC and EuratomThe European Coal and Steel Community was the first formal unified European body. It set the tone for European supranational organization. The European Economic Community (EEC) was created as an extension of the ECSC with the goal of bringing about economic integration among the six nations, referred to as the “Inner Six,” by creating a single market. The EEC, alongwith the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM), was formed out of two failed proposed communities, the European Defense Community (EDC) and the European PoliticalCommunity (EPC). The two proposed communities were thought to pose a threat to national sovereignty and were vetoed by France. The Messina Conference of 1955 gathered the ECSC nations, among others, to discuss expounding on the success they had already achieved, withthe creation of a generalized common market, and the creation of an atomic energy community. In March 1957, the ECSC member nations signed the two Treaties of Rome. The first treaty established the European Economic Community (EEC) and the second established a European Atomic Energy Community, better known as Euratom. The two treaties were enacted on January 1, 1958. The six ECSC states looked to nuclear energy as a means of achieving energy independence. Since individual states could not afford to invest in nuclear energy, the founding states joined together to form Euratom, so that all parties could reap the rewards of atomic energy development.1 Simultaneously, the Treaty ensured high standards of safety for the public and prevents the military from using nuclear materials intended for civilian use. Euratom's powers are limited to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.2 The EEC Treaty provided for the establishment of a common market, a customs union and common policies.3 Its impact has been significant; in 1960 the overwhelming majority of its members’ trade was with other regions of the world. Now more than 60 percent stays within the European nations.4
The biggest accomplishment of the EEC came in 1962 when common price levels on agriculture products were put into place, known as the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). However, with
6
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
the CAP and its financing policies came some resistance from the French, who removed themselves from the European institutions until their veto power was reinstated. The EEC not only removed trade barriers, but it has since worked on domestic economic regulation, andmonetary unification. Since the introduction of the Euro, the sixteen EU member states that use it have become the second largest economy in the world.5
The European CommunityThe European Community (EC) was the precursor to the European Union – the striking difference between the two bodies is the name. The EC was a blend of three individual communities: the ECSC, Euratom and the EEC. All three were established to encourage politicaland economic cooperation among member countries. The EC initially consisted of the six nations present in the ECSC, Euratom and EEC, but Britain, Ireland, and Denmark were added in 1973. After having installed democratic governments, Greece, Spain and Portugal were allowed to join as well (Greece in 1981, Spain and Portugal in 1986). The other Western European countries (Austria, Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland) belonged to a rival economic community, the European Free Trade Association, to which Britain, Ireland and Denmark also belonged before switching to the EC. Today Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Iceland, and Norway are the onlycountries to still be part of the EFTA. As European integration grew ever more successful, the EC member states appointed a committee to study the potential of raising the common market with a common currency (the Euro). Amendments were proposed to the original Treaties of Rome, in the Dutch town of Maastricht, in December 1991. The formation of the European Union was complete upon the signing of the Treaty of Maastricht on February 7, 1992, and the treaties were effective November 1, 1993.6
The European Union (EU)After being signed into existence by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993, the members of the European Community enjoyed substantial economic success – economic success, as the focus of the European Community had become economic stability. The European Community was just one of three branches of what became the EU. Along with the Common Foreign and SecurityPolicy (CFSP) and Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters (PJCC), the EC oversaw the affairs of its member states, and ensured domestic stability and prosperity. These three pillars were abandoned in 2009, when the Treaty of Maastricht was replaced with the Treaty of Lisbon, credited with taking the three aforementioned bodies and consolidating them into one, unified, stronger entity, the European Union. The Union’s membership has increased,through several rounds of enlargement from the six founding member states to twenty-seven.7
The UK, Denmark and Ireland joined in 1973, Greece in 1981, and Spain and Portugal in 1986, before the EU had emerged from its metamorphose during the EC era. In 1990, East Germany joined West Germany, and in 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden abandoned the EFTA for the security of the EU.8 On May 1, 2004, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Poland, Hungary, Lithuania,Latvia, Malta, Estonia, Slovakia, and Slovenia were admitted to the EU.9 Due to the disparity in development between the new additions and the older member states, temporary restrictionswere made on the travel and rights of work of eastern European citizens to older states.10 After having been considered unprepared for accession, Romania and Bulgaria were finally admitted on January 1, 2007, with the same restrictions as the nations that joined three years prior.11 The
7
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
EU’s foreign policy power has increased with every enlargement. The current membership of twenty-seven countries empowers the Union to get active in different regions of the world.12
On the economic front, member states are working to tighten co-ordination of their economic policies in an attempt to recover from the recent international financial crisis. The European Council and European Commission are constructing a ten-year plan, which should contain a series of policy objectives to boost the EU's economic performance, including reforms tonational labour markets and public spending.13 Recently, the European Union received seven more applications for potential accession, including Turkey, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, Iceland and Serbia. Of those seven, Turkey, Croatia, Serbia and Macedonia are engaged in serious negotiations for accession.
Topic 1: Economic Crisis in the European Union
Like the rest of the international community Europe is currently facing its greatest economic recession since the depression of the 1930s. Because of the shared currency among the European Union member states, with the exception of the United Kingdom, a collectiveeconomic downward spiral has been felt by all nations of the European Union. This has clearly been made evident by one member state after another crumbling under the weight of globalfinancial struggles. First there was Greece, now Ireland, and Portugal, Spain, and Italy are all facing an impending economic meltdown. Collective measures must be taken by the European Union to solve this economic crisis and to make sure that current member states do not slip further towards economic chaos.
European Union (EU), Eurozone, and the EuroThe European Union was formed in 1993 by the Treaty of Maastricht with the core objective of a single market between its members. A common currency, the euro, was introduced in 1999 and is used by the sixteen members of the Eurozone. The European Union is currently the largest economy in the world, by GDP standards, boasting a 21% share of the global economy. The European Union is also the largest exporter and importer of goods worldwide. The European Union created a single market and a customs union among its members that includes,through the single market, the free circulation of goods, capital, people, and services within the Union. The customs union enforces a common external tariff, which allows a good, once it enters the market internally, to not be subject to customs duties, discriminatory taxes, and import quotas. The non-EU members of the Eurozone, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein are part of the single market but are not entitled to the benefits of the customs union. It was the original intention of the EEC to create a common currency among its members but it was not until the Treaty of Maastricht that members were legally bound to create a monetary union with a start date no later than January 1, 1999. The euro was originally launched as an accounting currency and implemented by eleven of the fifteen members of thetime. It was not until 2002 that euro coins and notes were introduced and individual country currencies began to be replaced. Today the Eurozone comprises of sixteen members, theEuropean Union has twenty-seven, with the addition of Slovakia on January 1, 2009. The other eleven nations, with the exception of the United Kingdom and Sweden, are obliged to join the
8
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
euro once the criteria has been met, although few nations have actually set an accession date. The euro is intended to further promote the single market of the European Union by eliminatingexchange rate dilemmas, providing price transparency, and creating a single financial market. The euro is also seen as a political symbol for integration among the members of the Union. With a common currency the members can strive to work collectively on economic issues. The Eurozone is governed by the European Central Bank (ECB), led by a President appointed by the European Council and the heads of national banks, and operates on an agenda aimed tomaintain price stability.
Current European Economic CrisisThe global recession impacted and continues to impact many of the world’s economies. Europe has perhaps seen the largest effect from the global recession because of the European Union and the fact that sixteen of its twenty-seven member states share the same currency. This alone means that if the economy of one member of the Eurozone would suffer then it would cause a domino effect because the value and credibility of the euro would decline, and as a result, individual states took various actions to stabilize their individual economies. The European Union was created with the goal of collective unity and emphasizesthe need for its member nations to work together to solve problems. When one nation of the collective is corrupt it causes dilemma and significantly hinders the ability for the nations to work together. It also means that the troubles of said nation triggers an effect that is felt by all nations, the “domino effect”. Such is the case with Greece (see the case study on Greece for more information). The economic woes of Greece, extreme debt from money borrowing, led to the fall of the European economy because Greece was unable to pay back the debt that they owed to the other European nations. The bailout package that was created to save the Greek economy only created more debt because nations that were contributing to the package aresuffering from debt as well.
Case Studies: GreeceGreece entered the European Community in the 1980s as a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and in 1999 applied for membership to the European Union butwas rejected because of its failure to meet set standards put in place by the Treaty of Maastricht. In order to reapply for Euro membership Greece had to adopt strict austerity programs, which significantly cut back on public spending. By 2001 Greece was able to show that it was making considerable progress in its economy and became the 12th country to adopt the Euro as its currency. However, upon entry into the European Union, Greece was stillsuffering from a 4% inflation rate, one of the highest in Europe at the time, and its government-borrowing rose to 16% at the end of the 1990s.In 2007 the economic recession struck and it was made evident that years of unrestrained spending, cheap lending, and failure to implement financial reforms had lead Greece to debt levels that were not acceptable to the standards of the Eurozone. National debt levels were at €300 billion ($413.6 billion), larger than the country’s economy.14 From this level of exposure and debt Greece’s credit level took a heavy hit and was downgraded to the lowest possible level of the Eurozone. Greece has been left struggling to pay its bills because of rising interest
9
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
rates on existing debt. The Greek government has already started to cut back on spending and has implemented austerity plans with the aim of reducing the deficit by €10 billion ($13.7 billion).15 Much to the dismay of the public the government has also raised taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and fuel and has risen the retirement age by two years. These measures have left the people of Greece extremely displeased and workers nationwide have staged numerous strikes.16
The economic crisis in Greece is a threat to all members of the Eurozone as well as those countries who engage in trade with the Eurozone. Because of the common currency shared among all members of the Eurozone the economic woes of Greece have affected the credibility of the euro and many are worried that this could lead to a domino effect, toppling the economies of other weak countries. Those fears became reality upon the crippling of theeconomy of Ireland and the interest rates on government debt has risen making it extremely hard for these countries to borrow from the open market. The sixteen members of the Eurozone convened to discuss an economic rescue initiative to preserve Greece’s economy,however a European-backed loan had to first be approved by the European Union, meaning any Eurozone member would have had the power to veto the loan in a Union vote.17 The EU, however, in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund, agreed to move forward with this bailout package on May 2, 2010.18 Offering 110 billion Euros over three years, with 45 billion of the sum to be contributed immediately, this is the largest bailout package in recent history.
Case Studies: IrelandIn the past three years the economy of Ireland has gone from being very prosperous to facing an imminent collapse. The once booming economy was mainly centered on the Irish housingmarket, which has dropped some 50- 60% since 2008.19 Similar to Greece, Ireland’s banks have suffered from bad debt leading to bailouts from the Irish government, which have caused a large loss of money in government finances. From these loses the government now faces a budget deficit equivalent to 32% of GDP.20 The Irish recession has also led to deep deterioration in tax revenue and a rise in unemployment benefit claims. The government has proposed plans for austerity programs but there are fears that such programs would only plunge the country back into the recession it is starting to recover from. Since the start of the financial crisis in 2008 the Irish government pledged to cut spending a raise taxes by 15 billion euros and their latest austerity program pledges an additional cut by 15 billion euros.21 The government also aims to bring its budget deficit down to 3% by 2014, from 12% (where it currently stands), and to invest more shares in national banks to increase their future capital. The government of Ireland has been working on implementing such plans, however the Prime Minister at the time, Brian Cowen, agreed to general elections in January after the 2011 budget is passed.22 PM Cowen faced two non-confidence votes and has stepped down. The Irish government originally stated that by no means would a bailout package be necessary to help pay the debt of the national banks. However the national banks continued to experience more and more loss as foreign investors began to withdraw money due to doubt toward the Irish government’s ability to make up the debt.23 Concern was rather appropriate considering the debt of the national banks was several times the size of the annual output of the Irish economy. As the Irish government was not capable of helping their national banks alone the banks began to rely
10
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
heavily on the European Central bank for emergency funds, which led to concerns from other European governments. The 85 billion euro bailout package that has been agreed upon to support the Irish economy was actually spearheaded by European banks and governments, hoping to benefit from an improvement in Ireland’s economy. As a neighbour and close business partner to Ireland, the United Kingdom was particularly concerned over the status of the Irish economy, as it would see a decrease in demand for UK goods.24 Stating it was in the country’s best interest, the British government will contribute 3.8 billion euros in direct loans to the Irish government as part of the bailout package.25
Case Studies: The Iberian PeninsulaThe economic crisis in Europe has created reservations of a “domino effect.” As one economy fails more will follow suit, largely because of the shared currency of Eurozone members.Unfortunately after the Greek economy collapsed, so did the Irish economy. Many fear that Portugal and Spain will be the next two countries in the Eurozone that will need a bailoutpackage to help save their ailing economies. Portugal and Spain are of particular concern because of their rising borrowing costs to cover their debt. Both countries are not at risk of bankruptcy but their borrowing rates are making their debts more expensive to finance and severely diminishing any progress that austerity plans could bring about.26 The Portuguese government, led by Prime Minister Jose Socrates, has insisted that it will not need financialassistance because of its planned austerity programs that will lower their debt. It is estimated, however, that Portugal will need at least 50 billion Euros.27 Meanwhile Portugal has borrowed large sums of money to finance welfare entitlements and private consumption. The country has been able to protect jobs through outdated laws that make it difficult to fire workers while industries have failed to modernize. Austerity plans aim to cut the pay of public employees by 5%, trim welfare benefits, and hike income and sales tax. 28The Spanish Finance Minister, Elena Salgado, has also stated that Spain will not require any sort of bailout. The Spanish government insists that their national banks are in stable financial standing although Barclays analysts have stated the Spanish government and Spanish banks must come up 70 billion euros in the first four months of 2011, a task that will likely prove not viable.29 The Spanish government and Spanish banks face a very similar situation that toppled the Irish economy as international investors become more reluctant to invest in Spanish bonds. Spain also faces concerns over rising debt and little growth and the country currently has an unemployment rate of 19.8%, the highest of any Eurozone member.30 The Socialist government, led by Prime Minister Jose Luis RodrigoZapatero, has announced austerity measures that will reduce the current taxation of small and medium sized businesses as well the removal of additional money to unemployment benefits.31
The Spanish government will also privatize 30% of the national lottery and 49% of AENA, the national airport operator.32 Although the austerity measures are aimed to help the Spanish have staged numerous strikes.
Questions to Consider:Take these questions into consideration while doing your research:
1. How do member states of the European Union view those that have had their economies fail due to poor economic management?
11
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
2. What does your member state believe would be the best way to economically re-stabilize the troubled nations?
3. What countries in the European Union should take the lead in donating the most economic aid and how much should/can each state viably contributes?
4. Do you believe that the EU should have an economic summit, led by each member states economic ministers, to review and revise the economic policy of the EU and to discuss if enlargement of the EU should be halted or given further importance? Do you believe that further enlargement of the EU would be beneficial or detrimental to the economic state of the organization?
5. Should countries outside of the EU, such as the US, Canada, and other major trade partners, continue to bolster the economies of the countries in the EU or should an atmosphere of EU self-reliance and self-sufficiency be enforced?
References:1 European Commission, The European Atomic Energy Community, http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/euratom/euratom_en.htm (December 2009).2 Europa, Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_euratom_en.htm(October 2007).3 Ibid.4 Barry Eichengreen, European Economic Community, http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/EuropeanEconomicCommunity.html (1992).5 Bank for International Settlements, Foreign exchange and derivative market activityin 2007, http://www.bis.org/publ/rpfxf07t.pdf (December 2007).6 Barry Eichengreen, European Economic Community,http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/EuropeanEconomicCommunity.html (1992)7 Europa, The 27 member countries of the European Union, http://europa.eu/abouteu/27-member-countries/index_en.htm.8 Lisa Hunt and Gerda Falkner, "Austria: Friction and Mixed Feelings," The European Union and the Member States, ed. Eleanor Zeff and Ellen Pirro (Boulder, CO: Rienner, 2006) 239.9 Dr. Anne Faber, Eastern Enlargement and the European Union: All Quiet on the“European Front”?, http://www.chutedumur.com/resonances/215-eastern-enlargement-and-the-european-union-allquiet-on-the-european-front.html.10 Europa, Enlargement: How does it work?, http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/howdoes-it-work/index_en.htm.11 Dr. Anne Faber, Eastern Enlargement and the European Union: All Quiet on the“European Front”?, http://www.chutedumur.com/resonances/215-eastern-enlargement-and-the-european-union-allquiet-on-the-european-front.html.12 EU4Journalists, External Relations, http://www.eu4journalists.eu/index.php/dossiers/english/C42 (2009).13 Federal Foreign Office, German Foreign Policy is Peace Policy, http://www.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/__PR/P__Wash/2010/01/22__Westerwelle__Policy__PR,archiveCtx=2406324.html (January 2010).14 CNN, Greece’s Financial Crisis Explained, http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/02/10/greek.debt.qanda/index.html (26 March 2010).
12
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
15 Ibid.16 CNN, Greece’s Financial Crisis Explained, http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/02/10/greek.debt.qanda/index.html (26 March 2010).17 Ibid.18 The British Broadcasting Corporation, Q&A: Greece’s Economic Woes, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8508136.stm (2 May 2010).19 The British Broadcasting Corporation, Q&A: Irish Republic Bail-Out,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11766346 (29 November 2010).20 Ibid.21 Ibid.22 Ibid.23 Ibid.24 The British Broadcasting Corporation, Q&A: Irish Republic Bail-Out, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11766346 (29 November 2010).25 Ibid.26 Mail Online, So who’s next for financial meltdown? Spain, Portugal and Belgium set to follow Ireland into abyss as debt crisis threatens to destroy the euro, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332686/Spain-Portugal-Belgium-set-follow-Ireland-debt-crisis-threatens-euro.html (25 November 2010).27 Ibid.28 Ibid.29 The Telegraph, Spain could be forced to seek a bail-out within months, warns Barclays,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/8163705/Spain-could-be-forcedto-seek-a-bail-out-within-months-warns-Barclays.html (27 November 2010).30 Mail Online, So who’s next for financial meltdown?31 Tax-News.com, Spanish PM Announces Further Austerity Measures, http://www.taxnews.com/news/Spanish_PM_Announces_Further_Austerity_Measures____46641.html (6 December 2010).32 Ibid.
Topic 2: The Expansion of the European UnionBackgroundThe topic of increasing European Union membership will be focused on deciding whether or not the current membership rules are relevant, and if so, which countries currently looking to join the EU are valid candidates. European Union expansion is always a heated topic because countries are threatened to share an economic and social organization with other countries. Yet, bringing in other countries into the EU is seen as promising because it allows the Union to stabilize the entire European region, while expanding its reaches to the outskirts of Europe.1 Europe usually views enlargement favourably because it would mean they have a larger economic scale and advantage against other world powers, like China or the United States. The expansion of the European Union involves the acquisition of new member states. In order to join the Union, a candidate country needs to fulfill a set of economic and political processes called the Copenhagen Criteria. Application for EU membership is usually a lengthy process. First, a European country must submit an application to the European Union Council. Then, the
13
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
European Commission offers a formal opinion of the country. Once the Council agrees that the candidate is a worthy member state, negotiations between the candidate and other EU nations‐ begin. The negotiations tend to discuss specific policies of the candidate nation. However, before the negotiations start, the Copenhagen Criteria must be met. The Copenhagen Criteria contains three main objectives: first, the candidate must have stable institutions that guaranteedemocracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities; second, it must have a functioning market economy, as well as the ability to cope with the pressure ofcompetition and the market forces at work inside the Union; third, the candidate shall have the ability to assume the obligations of membership, in particular adherence to the objectives of political, economic and monetary union.2 As part of the integration process, the Madrid European Council decided to make it mandatory that member states who are integrated into ‐the European Union must reflect the Copenhagen Criteria in their own national laws, and enforced in the administrative and judicial systems. During negotiations with the EuropeanCommission, candidate countries must convince them its laws and administrative systems are sufficient to carry out the laws of the European Union. To assess how efficient each country is for their ascension into the EU, the European Commission sends the Council a yearly report on the candidate country. Once the negotiations are complete, all of the member states of the Union, as well as the institutions of the Union, and the candidate country must ratify and sign a treaty of accession. The duration of the entire process depends heavily on how ready the candidate country is. Though it can take several decades, many countries have also been accepted into the EU in a decade or less. Current members of the EU are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
Past UN/International ActionsEuropean Union enlargement has had many successes and failures. The principal reasons for enlargement include economic gain and political stability. More recent expansions of the European Union have included Eastern European countries, many of which have sprung from under the umbrella and influence of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. These countriesinclude Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, among others. As is the case with the Eastern European membership countries, their motivation in joining the EU were primarily political, in order to gain democratic stability and political credibility. The impactof the recent accessions into the EU is that it demobilizes the power of influential countries such as France and Germany since the power is more spread out between countries. In the 1990s, the accession of Austria, Sweden, and Finland into the EU was not particularly dramatic because most of the member states felt that these three countries were wealthy, and so would‐ serve the EU well to include them as members. Many of the Expansions are given numbered names, and the First, Second, and Third Enlargements of the EU created numerous blocs within the EU that would split it into different sects for particular economic and political issues. A primary concern for those of the international community when the EU expands is that the new member state may not be ready for EU membership. For instance, when Cyprus applied for EU‐membership, many member states felt that it was not ready for membership yet, even though ‐the European Commission had given Cyprus a good opinion. Another concern has been the
14
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
influence of power within the EU. When the United Kingdom applied for membership during the First Enlargement, France and Germany did not particularly support the idea of the UK in the EU because it would usurp their power in Europe. In fact, one of the primary reasons the UK wanted to join the EU was to enlarge the United States and the UK sphere of influence into the European Union. With almost 489 million people under its umbrella, the European Union couldpotentially become economically overburdened, institutionally unwieldy and ultimately unmanageable with the addition of member nations with much lower per capita incomes.3 There are many more issues that the international community has found with EU enlargement. One issue is that European Union countries are using the criteria for entering the Union as ameans of punishing aspiring countries for not compromising with them. For example, Croatia’s accession negotiations into the EU have been slowed by its quarrel over its Mediterranean border with Slovenia, which has vetoed parts of Croatia’s chapter in negotiations.4 If countries were to continue this policy of delegitimizing countries that are worthy of European Union entry for political reasons, enlargement may not be achievable.
Case StudiesIn the case studies, we will focus on specific nations that are on the brink of EU membership:CroatiaCroatia applied for EU membership in 2003, and was granted candidate country status by the European Council in mid 2004. Although EU member states view Croatia’s accession ‐ ‐favourable, there are several issues that Croatia must resolve before entering the European Union. First, it has had several border disagreements with a few European nations. A border dispute between Slovenia and Croatia stalled the negotiation process, since Slovenia is an EU member state who ‐ has veto power against negotiations. The border issue around the Piran Bay had caused disagreement between the two countries, since Croatia claims the border goes through the middle of the bay, while Slovenia claims that since there is no border through the bay, it would belong to Slovenia and allow its ships to directly enter the sea. Recently, in June 2010, Slovenian and Croatian parliaments passed a national referendum to let international arbitrators attempt to resolve the issue, but it remains unresolved.5 Second, Croatia has been accused of allowing corruption run rampant along its borders and within its government. A string of corruption scandals and gang related murders have worried the Council as to whether ‐or not the government of Croatia has the political will to break the links between gangs and political leaders.6 Third, Croatia’s relationship with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has been an area of great discussion, since Croatia had not been fully cooperative with the court in catching fugitives and criminals. Other issues of concern include agricultural development and judicial process of the nation. Though these are areas of concern, Croatia still has a good chance of appealing to the Council and is aiming for 2012 as the year they join the European Union.
TurkeyThe negotiation of Turkey into the European Union has been contested from the beginning because of Turkey’s foreign relations. Turkey applied for EU membership in 1987, and was fully
15
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
recognized as a candidate in 1999. Negotiations between the member states began in 2005, ‐but Turkey has several membership issues to sort out before becoming a EU member. First of all, Turkey has strenuous foreign relations with EU member states, such as Cyprus and Greece.‐Because of the Turkish invasion in 1974, Cyprus was divided in half, and Turkey does not recognize Cyprus as the authority of its entire nation.7 Turkey may be forced to choose between ownership of part of Cyprus or membership into the EU. Unfortunately, although Turkey signed the Ankara Protocol to respect Cyprus, the protocol did not mean that Turkey had to recognize Cyprus. The disobedience from the Ankara Protocol demonstrated to the European Union Turkey’s intransigence in dealing with other foreign countries, making it a problematic candidate into the Union. Also, relations between Turkey and Greece have been contentious over rights to the Aegean Sea, including military flight rights and the delimitation of the continental shelf zone. Second, the economic impact of Turkey joining the EU may be problematic. The size of Turkey’s population and economy may push the EU into limits of itsinstitutional power. For Turkey, the prospect of European Union membership has become even more important in improving standards of living, foreign investment and employment.8 For them to fully comprehend being a member of the EU, they would need to change theirinfrastructure and political ideologies towards certain countries because of the benefits that EU membership offers.
IcelandIceland applied for EU membership in mid 2009, and immediately, the European Council ‐granted them candidate country status. Because they are seen as very similar in economic and political structure to many of the countries already in the EU, their accession status has been much quicker than its counterparts. An area of concern for Iceland’s membership is the impact of the financial crisis. Though many countries were hit hard, Iceland’s fishing industry, which provides a large part of the nation’s GDP, was depressed, and caused a financial collapse. According to the Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, Iceland’s seafood industry exported products were valued at 1.4 billion Euros, or $1.9 billion, in 2007.9 Because of theimportance of the fishing industry, Iceland is against the idea of providing access to Iceland’s fishing grounds to the European Union in the fear that it would undermine the already floundering industry. This would be difficult to get across to the European Commission because EU fishermen would not have access to Iceland’s waters if they were a part of the EU. Another area of concern is the Icesave dispute, in which the United Kingdom and the Netherlands pushed the Icelandic government to repay their citizens for the financial loss incurred during the Iceland banking crisis of 2008 when Icesave, one of the largest banks in Iceland, collapsed.10
Although the UK and Netherlands are owed 3.8 billion Euros, the Icelandic government has not been quick to honour their debt, which unsurprisingly has been met with criticism. The international community feels that Iceland would not be fit for an international financial system if they could not resolve their own domestic financial problems. Though they are seen as favourable, these dilemmas could provide problems for Iceland’s membership into the EU. It is important to keep in mind that the problems that plague Turkey and Croatia do not plague Iceland. There is no stigma of being part of the Eastern European bloc of newly appointed members in Romania and Bulgaria that has been highly ineffective at implementing action plans and resolving corruption.
16
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
Questions to Consider• What criteria should be considered other than political and economic reasons for joining the European Union?• Which country do you think is the most prepared for EU membership?• How can negotiations between the candidate and the EU Council be improved so that the membership process does not have to take several decades to accomplish?• What would you recommend to the countries close to entering membership to do in terms of eliminating out the problems that must have existed before they applied for membership?• Is the current membership process effective? If not, what solution would you offer?• How can we determine which countries are effectively upholding the Copenhagen Criteria and which countries are not?• What problems does your country foresee in adding the 3 countries covered in the case studies as member states?• How can the European Union monitor the corruption within its member states, especially in the Eastern European bloc?
References
1 Champion, Mark. “EU Expansion Fosters Stability, Bildt Says”. New York Times. 24 Oct. 2010. Web 23 June 2009. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124568425718637441.html>
2 “Conditions for Enlargement”. European Commission. 24 Oct. 2010. <http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/thepolicy/conditions for enlargement/index_en.htm>‐ ‐
3 Bilefsky, Dan. “Romania and Bulgaria Celebrate Entry Into European Union”. New York Times. 20 Oct. 2010. Web 2 Jan. 2007.<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/world/europe/02union.html>.
4 Barysch, Katinka. “Why Enlargement is in Trouble”. Centre for European Reform. 23 Oct. 2010. Wen 24 Feb. 2009. <http://centreforeuropeanreform.blogspot.com/2009 /02/why‐enlargement is in trouble.html>.‐ ‐ ‐
5 “Slovenia backs Croatia border deal in referendum vote”. BBC News. 24 Oct. 2010. Web 6 June 2010.<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10248037>.
6 “A Balkan state in balk”. The Economist. 10 Oct. 2010. Web 16 Apr. 2009.<http://www.economist.com/node/13497022>.
7 “Turkey accession and Cyprus”. EurActiv. 20 Oct. 2010. Web 12 Oct. 2010.<http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/turkeyaccession and cyprus linksdossier 188330>.‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
17
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
8 Kanter, James. “European Union Moves Ahead With Turkey and Croatia Talks”. New York Times. 1 Oct. 2010. Web 13 June 2006.<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E5DB1331F930A25755C0A9609C8B63>.
9 Castle, Stephen. “European Union Puts Out the Welcome Mat for Once Aloof Iceland”. ‐ New York Times. 7 Oct. 2010. Web 27 July 09.<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/business/global/28union.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=european%20union%20expansion&st=Search>.
10 Li, Hao. “Iceland seeks EU membership benefits, but fishing and Icesave remain thorny issues”. International Business Times. 20 Oct. 2010. Web 27 July 2010.<http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/38819/20100727/iceland wants eu benefits but fishing‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐and icesavethorny issues.htm>‐ ‐
18
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
Topic 3: Illegal Immigration Within the European Union TerritoryTopic BackgroundThe topic of illegal immigration into and within the European Union territory will be focused on the causes and effects of the problem, with an eye on possible solutions and changes to the current immigration policy. In general, around half a million illegal immigrants enter the EU every year. It is important to note that in the past year, the number of people entering theEuropean Union illegally has fallen by a third because of fewer job opportunities available due to the global economic recession.1 Yet, despite the economic recession, there are still many illegal immigrants traveling into the European Union every year. Illegal immigration into the European Union has been an international problem for a long time, since the economic prospect of working within the EU is more attractive than the job opportunities within their own country, usually in Eastern Europe. Because of that reason, in February 2002, the EU Council of Ministers adopted a three pronged comprehensive plan to combat illegal ‐immigration and trafficking of human beings in the European Union. Since 2002, there has been constant revision of the plan, so that it became molded to the current policy. The EU policy is to develop a comprehensive system for immigration, asylum, and a single external border controlstrategy. Immigration initiatives such as visa policy, asylum policies like readmission andrepatriation, and border control strategy including border management and tracking human trafficking were part of the EU policy. The European Union’s goal is to create a common asylum policy, which would initiate the long term resident status of refugees within Europe and ‐develop the return and readmissions policy so that illegal immigrants could become legal. Whether or not the policy has been able to reach its potential is debatable because the immigration policy has been criticized and lauded. First, in terms of a visa policy, there would be an automated system for the registration of third country nationals entering into or leaving EU territory.2 Having a common immigration policy for visas would be effective because the visa policies in the eastern nations are much more lax than the rest of Europe, making illegal immigration through Eastern Europe a popular hotspot. An individual admitted into the EU for a green card must be of legal status, so they could establish themselves socially and economically. The visa policy would allow those who enter legally to be able to cross the borders of every European Union member. With the goal of the policy to allow immigrants legal status to work, the potential problem is that it may be difficult to develop a comprehensive anduniform plan across member states. Second, the development of readmission and repatriation ‐policies to provide asylum for those who seek asylum has garnered support. Because any third‐country national who has no legal right, temporary or permanent, to reside in the EU must return to their country of origin, the European Union has reached bilateral agreementswith non member states to return those illegal immigrants through flight.‐ 3 There has been an enhanced use of joint return flights by Member States. In December of 2008, the readmission policy was further developed by Directive 2008/115/EC, where Member States may refrain from issuing a return decision to a third country national staying illegally on their territory if the‐third country national concerned is taken back by another Member State under bilateral ‐agreements or arrangements.4 However, the readmission policy has drawn a lot of criticism. In 2008, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela threatened to cut the oil supply to Europe because of the EU’s policy of long detention periods for deporting illegal immigrants.5
19
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
The third part of the policy involves managing the borders and human trafficking. The cause of poor border control and human trafficking usually involves he lack of economic opportunities in the home country, so people are forced to move into the European Union. Though it may beunfeasible for the EU to try to improve the economic status of countries outside of its realm, it is realistic for it to create policies in place to enforce a strong border. The Action Plan covers a range of issues such as measures to improve the understanding of the crime and its dimensions, prevent trafficking, reduce demand, more efficient investigation and prosecution, protection and support of victims, safe return and reintegration and also issues linked to anti‐trafficking in third countries.6 As a result, there could be a potentially strong border, but as always, there are problems of strengthening human trafficking laws so that the borders are not exposed. Another issue concerning the illegal immigration within the European Union territory is the problem of workers moving in and out of European Union countries without work permits. In both the Treaty of Accession 2003 and 2005, there is a clause about a transition period before workers from the new member states can be employed on an equal, non‐discriminatory terms in the old member states. The transition period allows the old members and new members to get used to the accession of the new member state. The old member ‐states have the right to impose such transitional period for as long as 7 years because they can first impose a period of 2 years, then to decide if to extend it for additional 3 years, and then, if there is serious proof that labour from new member states would be disruptive to the market in the old member states then the period can be extended for the last time for 2 more years. There must be a more developed plan for workers that are moving within the European Union territory so that it is clear what member states must do when they are faced with having a ‐worker without work permits. Currently, the plan is ineffective because workers are not given the opportunity for labour.
Past UN/International ActionsPast European Union action on immigration have generally revolved around controlling the inflow of illegal immigrants. National programs to control immigration into EU member states have been in existence for decades but it was not until October 1999 that moves were made towards a EU wide common asylum and immigration policy at the Tampere Summit.‐ 7 The continuation of this initiative was decided upon at the European Council of Nov 2004, and isknown as the "Hague program", a 5 year plan to establish an area of freedom, security and justice in the EU. Unfortunately, the plan did not seem to work out. In 2006, the number of migrants from sub Saharan Africa arriving on the Canary Islands increased dramatically to‐31,000, six times the figure of 2005.8 The agency that was given the task to control the shores of the EU, Frontex, was overwhelmed by the growing immigration problem and had to ask EU member states‐ to send helicopters, aircraft, vessels and other equipment for marine operations so that the immigration control would be more effective. This greatly resulted in efficiency in patrolling the seas, since Frontex had trouble in years before trying to patrol the seas when it was overstretched. A possible solution that has been brought up is the issuance of green cards for the European Union. Germany has tried using green cards since 2000, but to no avail. Germany has been failing to attract as many young professionals or highly qualified personnel as it needs, but keeps insisting that green card decisions should be left to national governments, and not the EU. Using green cards would be effective as long as there is proper
20
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
regulation and sufficient technology to back the program. If there isn’t, it could turn into a potential disaster because hackers would easily steal the information, jeopardizing the identities of millions of people. The European Union must find out how each government couldprovide the same type of green card policy, or if it must undertake the task itself. In a document of priorities for the next few years, the European Commission adopted a need for improving the practical use of the tools available to combat illegal immigration so that there would be a moreintegrated European society.9 Policies created would be aimed at both the European and national level of government. Tougher measures, including longer prison sentences, for human traffickers bringing illegal immigrants into European Union countries have been discussed thoroughly by the Commission. Whether or not those policies have a place in the European Union depends highly on what each member believes. Though discussed, but not completelyanalyzed, within MEMO/06/296 in 2006, the European Union adopted a set of policies to deter and fight illegal immigration. Policies that it discusses include cooperation with third countries,strengthening external borders, fight against human trafficking, and tackling illegal employment of immigrants from outside by regularizing the process and returning the immigrants while maintaining a highly integrated society. The European Union has focused mainly on buttressingand supporting its borders against immigration from countries outside its borders, but will also be focused on maintaining the quality of lifestyle for immigrants within.
Case StudiesBulgaria/RomaniaThe policy within the EU has been that old member states would require the workers from new‐ member states to acquire permits to work in other countries. Such a case has been that 15 ‐members require Romanians and Bulgarians to acquire a work permit in order to work in oldmember states. Some of the countries, which imposed no curbs on workers from those eight ‐countries or lifted them in May 2006 imposed curbs on Bulgarians and Romanians.‐ ‐ 10 Yet, it is important to note that the freedom of movement of workers is an inherent right of the European Union. The problem with work permits is that not many workers adhere to the policy of acquiring permits, creating illegal employment of workers in the old member-states with better economies. It is important to note that there are countries that do not have restrictions on Bulgaria and Romania. The Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia,and Sweden decided not to apply any restrictions on access to their labour markets by Bulgarian and Romanian workers while Finland, Cyprus and Slovenia do not apply any ex ante ‐restrictions on access to their labour markets but Bulgarian and Romanian workers must register subsequently.11 The process of having to register for a work permit, along with the frustration of being restricted usually undermines the economic movement of labour. As the European Union grows, it has to have a policy in place that will directly address the movement of workers between countries.
GreeceGreece faces problems associated with immigration, but never enjoys the benefits with immigration into its country. Greece's biggest increase in illegal traffic has been through its land and sea borders with Turkey.12 In fact, many of the illegal immigrants heading into Greece are from Iraq or Afghanistan hoping to go through Greece into Western European countries
21
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
such as Sweden and Germany. This undermines Greece’s law enforcement system because the immigrants do not stay in Greece, so while Greek authorities deal with deaths of drowned and poor immigrants, only the Western European countries reap the benefits from cheaper wages and higher work force participation. In addition, after the opening of the Albanian borders in 1991, a huge influx of Albanian economic migrants crossed illegally into Greece in order to find work, which is common for many illegal immigrants entering Greece. They are currently estimated at about 600,000 800,000, but an accurate calculation is very difficult because of the‐ large percentage of illegal immigrants. This is largely due to the fact that law enforcement officials are overstretched, and do not have the proper funding and numbers to track down theillegal immigrants.In the current year, Greek police have caught 34,000 clandestine migrants near the Evros border river compared to 9,000 last year, which is attributed to the fact that tighter borders and regulations have diverted many refugees from Spain, Malta and Italy towards Greece, leaving Greek authorities completely overextended.13 The general problem that is exemplified by Greece is the overall lack of law authorities available to attend to the illegal immigration pouring over its borders. The question at hand begs the European Union to consider whether enforcement of illegal immigration laws are a national or European issue to deal with.
Questions to Consider• What policies would your country recommend to curtail illegal immigration?• Should the EU increase the amount of economic support for the countries losing immigrants in order to attract them back into their home country?• What is the motivation behind illegal immigration into the European Union, and what policies can be implemented to curtail those motivations?• In what ways are the motivations behind illegal immigration into the EU similar to the motivations behind illegal immigration of workers within the EU?• How can your country provide stringent enforcement behind illegal immigration laws?• Should the European Union provide law enforcement for illegal immigration, considering many countries are facing overstretched law enforcement?• How should the EU go about in taking off restrictions on workers from Eastern European nations like Bulgaria and Romania?
References1 Bowcott, Owen. “EU border agency says third fewer illegal immigrants spotted in past year”. The Guardian. 24 Oct. 2010. Web 25 May 2010. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/25/euborder fewer illegal immigrants>.‐ ‐ ‐
2 “EU policy to fight illegal immigration”. Europa. 15 Oct. 2010. Web 19 July 2006.<http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/06/296&format=PDF&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en>.
22
Euro
pean
Uni
on B
ackg
roun
d G
uide
| SW
CMU
N 2
011
3 “Illegal immigration, asylum, and border control”. EurActive. 20 Oct. 2010. 24 Apr. 2006.<http://www.euractiv.com/en/security/illegalimmigration asylum border control/article‐ ‐ ‐ ‐117508>.
4 Directive Dec/115/EC. 20 Oct. 2010. Web 24 Dec.2008. <http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:348:0098:0107:EN:PDF>.
5 Kollewe, Julia and Graeme Wearden. “Chavez threatens EU with oil boycott”. 24 Oct. 2010. Web 20 June 2008. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/20/oil.chavez.opec>.
6 “EU policy to fight illegal immigration”. Europa. 15 Oct. 2010. Web 19 July 2006.<http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/06/296&format=PDF&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en>
7 “Illegal immigration, asylum, and border control”. EurActive. 20 Oct. 2010. 24 Apr. 2006.<http://www.euractiv.com/en/security/illegalimmigration asylum border control/article‐ ‐ ‐ ‐117508>.
8 Traynor, Ian. “EU warned of new wave of illegal immigrants”. The Guardian. 17 Oct. 2010. 16 Jan. 2007.<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/16/eu.politics>.
9 “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council”. European Affairs Committee. 24 Oct. 2010. Web 2009. <http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/oct/stockholm programme portugal eu cttee.pdf>.‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
10 “EU Free Movement of Labour Map”. BBC News. 20 Oct. 2010. 17 Apr. 2009. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3513889.stm>.
11 “Commission report on transitional arrangements regarding free movement of workers”. Europa. 17 Oct. 2010. 18 Nov. 2008.<http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/718&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en>.
12 Kitsantonis, Niki. “Greece struggles to curb influx of illegal immigrants”. New York Times. 20 Oct. 2010. Web 4 Oct. 2007. <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/world/europe/04iht‐migrate.4.7756077.html?_r=2>.
13 “Greece, Turkey vow cooperation on illegal migration”. EU Business. 24 Oct. 2010. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://www.eubusiness.com/news eu/greeceturkey.6o3/>.‐
This background guide has been adapted from EU Background Guides at the following HSMUN conferences: Berkley Model UN (BMUN) and Washington Area Model UN (WAMUN).
