News Now
National sovereignty; traditionally a nation’s most prized possession, encompassing both the right to rule over a nation’s citizenry, and the ability to enforce said rule. It is sovereignty that allows nations to exist in the form which we understand them today. However, the development of supranational institutions such as the European Union, threatens the prized sovereignty of member states. The subversion of sovereignty through membership is exposed within the structure of the EU itself. The condition of pooled sovereignty alongside the process of qualified majority voting that operates along within the EU, leads to nations adopting bills and legislation contrary to national interests. As well, the economic dependence placed upon member states to the eurozone single market, in turn develops asymmetries that lead to codependency between member states on each other, impeding national choice within the market. Moreover, the threat to sovereignty that membership within the EU entails is considerable, such that claims advocating membership within the EU are unable to effectively dispute that, when nations join the EU or other like-organizations, they must consistently give up some form of national sovereignty.
The existence of the EU is built upon the use of pooled sovereignty, where according to Robert O. Keohane of Duke University “[a] states’ legal authority over internal and external affairs is transferred to the Community as a whole” (Keohane, 2002, p.6). This transfer of power from the internal state to the external community is displayed through the EU’s use of the qualified majority vote (QMV). “National sovereignty has been fragmented by the extension of the qualified majority voting (…) which means that member states are obliged to increasingly adopt laws to which they may oppose.” (De Fouloy, 2016, para. 2) If sovereignty is described as the ability of a nation to self-govern and exert control within and outside the state, then the QMV is the antithesis to sovereignty. As well, the use of the QMV is not isolated to a single matter, if a nation were to become a member of the EU, that nation would be forced to abandon sovereignty for a vote on the following national issues: asylum, border control, criminal law, emergency international aid, and more. (De Fouloy, 2016). Although democratic, the use of voting without the power of veto (under the majority of circumstances) to determine EU policy within member states, subverts and splinters the sovereignty of member states. It is clear then how pooled sovereignty, a cornerstone of the EU, actively diverges from the classic concept of sovereignty “[that] prohibits governments from agreeing to rules defining a process which it does not have a veto” (Keohane, 2002, p.6) thus, leading to a degradation of national sovereignty within member states.
Though controversial, the topic of sovereignty is still debated in regards to member states of the EU. Often arguments that encourage membership within the institution of the EU fail to compile sufficient indisputable evidence against a loss of member state sovereignty. Evidence of this misstep can be examined through Dr. Westcotts 2020 article: Sovereignty and Brexit: Control of What Exactly?, where it is argued membership within the EU would grant the UK greater effective power to achieve national interests, “It is a thinner sovereignty, less absolute (…) but more effective in protecting British Interests” (Westcott, 2020, para.11). The argument Wescott proposes is that, through pooled sovereignty the economic interests of the UK are better protected as the UK would gain greater influence over neighbouring member states, “you won’t always get your own way but can prevent your neighbours from going the wrong way.” (Westcott, 2020, para. 12). Nevertheless, this argument fails to take into account that as the UK may gain influence on member states, those same member states would gain influence over the UK. Moreover, if a nation like the UK were to be in the minority of a vote there would be little possibility for that nation to affect any form of outcome due to the QMV. As discussed in the latter paragraph and by author Christian De Fouloy, “sovereignty has been fragmented by qualified majority voting (QMV) and [a] decrease of the exercise of national veto.” (De Fouloy, 2016, para. 2). Lastly, arguments in favour for the EU often admit to sovereignty being lost within member states; “While member states have long lost their veto powers over issues related to the single market, unanimity is still required on (…) taxation and foreign policy.” (Yordanova et al., 2020, para. 10). The language used within the quote demonstrates that sovereignty is indeed lost with regards to the single market, moreover the use of unanimity leads to the consequence of compromises, which may result in no nation being satisfied with an outcome. (De Fouloy, 2020)
A key function of the establishment of the EU is the development of a single market for free trade within member states. However the asymmetric nature of this market develops yet more threats to the sovereignty of EU member states involved within (Hammacher, 2021). Due to the EU being made of many nations of varying size and economic output, the single market is inherently asymmetric, as Amelie Hammacher discusses, “Germany, like every other large economy, has resources that lead to a still existing codependency among EU member states.” (2021, pp.84-85). In other words, the asymmetry leads to nations being dependent on each other. The dependency placed upon nations through this market jeopardizes sovereignty as individual nations observe less choice within a market when they are dependent onto other nations. It should be noted that although “power asymmetries do exist (…) they can be balanced” (Hammacher, 2021, p.85), however this balance may only be obtained through collective means such as coalition (Hammacher, 2021). Notwithstanding, coalitions also pose a negative effect on sovereignty as individual nations are often required to accept unwelcome concessions that are unfavorable to that nation’s population.
Though the European Union contains many benefits to nations seeking membership, such as free trade, the cost to member states’ sovereignty is not to be overlooked. By way of pooled sovereignty and the use of the qualified majority vote, sovereignty is shown to be stripped away from member states, “overall (…) [it is] agreed that in some cases the EU’s juridical system dominates the national one” (Hammacher, 2021, p.86). Moreover the implementation of the euro and eurozone, creating an asymmetric market, furthers the corrosion to sovereignty of member states. It is evident that, regardless of arguments made by advocates for EU membership, there comes an inherent cost to any nation that wishes to join into the pooled sovereignty of the European Union. As put by Amelie Hammacher “The term sovereignty as we know it before the establishment of the EU is crumbling” (2021, p.97).
- De Fouloy, C. (2016). The EU and member states sovereignty. Associated Accredited Public Policy Advocates to the European Union.
http://www.aalep.eu/eu-and-member-states-sovereignty
Hammacher, A. (2021). The erosion of sovereignty of EU member states through the Union’s economic and financial framework: A case study of Italy and Germany. Webster Vienna Private University.
Keohane, R. (2002). Ironies of sovereignty: The European Union and the United States. Duke University.
Westcott, N. (2020). Sovereignty and brexit: Control of what exactly? UK in a Changing Europe.
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/sovereignty-and-brexit-control-of-what-exactly/
Yordanova, N., Angeoleva, M., Lehrer, R., Osnabrügge, M., & Renes, S. (2020). Why EU member states should take heed of the sovereignty concerns of their citizens. London School of Economics and Political Science.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2020/12/21/why-eu-member-states-should-take-heed-of-the-sovereignty-concerns-of-their-citizens/
Leave a Reply