Scarica History of european integration e più Appunti in PDF di Storia solo su Docsity! SEA break the stagnation of Europe. Difference between Delors and Junker: Delors always tried to check support for his proposals and eventually change them (looking for a common background in the domestic politics of member states to achieve some federal European goals; work of strategy); Junker does it on his own and everybody is constantly surprised by proposals, ideas and speeches (absence of strategy). Change in the guide of Germany (Schmitt, SPD to Kohl, UCD) was, against the expectations, a good thing for European integration (Mitterand and Kohl were on the same line about European integration reconciliation hand in hand in front of symbols of WW2). There were many progresses about common market (proposals in the white book translated in directives, many of them very technical and detailed, which aimed to eliminate non-fiscal barriers). Why detailed legislation? Because each country had its own standard, and EU tried to give a minimum that could be shared by all the member states (every business pushed its government to defend the national standard about anything). So, progress on common market, but full of problems. Social policy: why needed? Differences between member states, in particular pressure was strong for the countries who entered EU with the progressive enlargement of the supranational institutions. Vasso Papandreu was an important commissioner of Social Affairs that pushed for a stronger social European policy. Delors: not European legislation, but member states’ negotiations: he tried to build a social dialogue in the European arena, between governments and citizens. Why so little? Cohabitation in France complicated bargaining and negotiations (not a single voice). Germany wanted a working social policy, UK opposed: the result was a non-binding document, the “Community charter of the fundamental social rights of workers” (what usually happens without consensus). Monetary issue: Bundesbank too strong and autonomous (instead, French and Italian central banks were not so autonomous from the government). European Council decided to constitute a committee with the represents of the national banks (Council of monetary affairs). The committee had the aim to carry the “snake” into transforming in something else (joint currency?). The key element was connecting the currencies in fixed ways (in order to avoid autonomous fluctuation). To do this, it is needed to have a central, higher authority of monetary affairs. Germany and Netherlands wanted to have an autonomous bank (in order to stabilize prices), Italy and France wanted to have a bank dependent by governments and politics (expansive monetary policies). How to fix currencies? A fixed deadline, like a fixed day could damage the strong party. So, three stages of monetary union, in each of them governments had to look for the results of convergence of economic data (budgetary deficit, percentage of inflation and interest rates). If convergence was realized, move to the next stage. June 1989: progresses on monetary policy was needed (report Delors). International environment: Gorbaciov, mearsheimer and German problem, Jugoslavia problem. Gorbaciov: Glasnost and perestroika. Therefore, he did not interfere with protesting issues in the countries under the soviet influence (most important: Berlin wall). Anyway, reunification of West Germany with the Eastern part: Soviet Union wanted a neutral reunified Germany. Negotiations (for borders as well) started between UK, France, Soviet Union and United States. Mearsheimer (American scholar): back to the future? German problem was happening again with the question of balance of power. Reunified Germany could mean strong Germany. Germany could pursue autonomy and interacting with the right and the left, not being a reliable party for the West countries neither for the Soviet Union (schaukelpolitik). Sooner or later, according to Mearsheimer, that could have led to another major war.
