EUP

EUP

Although it has been over 2 years that I followed the minor EUP I still recall it clearly. The thing about EUP was for me personally the misjudgement of the minor. Nevertheless it was an interesting Minor where a lot of recent development where used to explain what the European Union was about. What has to be kept in mind when talking about EUP is that the European Union is a union that is created and based on law, so therefore this topic was very dominant during the entire minor. Because all of the developments and happenings that took or take place in European Union is based on Law it is very important to understand its role. A large factor in law is the debating factor, which for me personally was really fun to do.

The misjudgement about the minor was mainly about the intensity of law that plays a role in this minor. Once the minor is well on its way, the understanding of the role of law becomes clear. Nevertheless it would have been nice if this role was been outlined more in the beginning so students know what to expect. Law is a very tough and time consuming topic and the level expected of the understanding of European law was sometimes very high. This created some problems in working out assignment when help from outside was necessary to complete assignments. At the end the understanding becomes clear and it becomes clear that a minor about the European Union can not function without law.

The fun thing about the minor was case based studying. Not that the cases where always very special and interesting, but mainly because they where about recent developments of which everyone had heard about, but not really focussed on. This really makes students feel the extra value of the minor because they gain extra knowledge about actual affairs. Of course the trip to Brussels contributes a lot to the minor, because it is not all theory, but what is studied about becomes real and therefore easier to understand.

The very base of the European Union is based on law and on debating this law. This becomes clear once the European Parliament is being visited. When entering this massive room it hits you, that all that is being created in the European Union, first takes a long track in debating and lobbying. To really understand this, debating plays a vital part in the minor, not just for English, but during the normal project groups as well when recent articles are being discussed.

Overall it was very hard to get into the minor because of the surprising large amount of law and other affords that had to be prepared for tutor group and the English classes. After a while though it all falls into place and the hard work pays off by reaching I high level of knowledge about the European Union and its day-to-day activities. This is not only fun to know but comes in hand when talking about international business.

Re-election!

Re-election!

The elections of 2010 took place on the 9^th of June, and the big winner VVD with Mark Rutte as its leader had an ambitious programme to come up with a new government within 3 weeks time. At the moment we are 3 months passed this ambitious deadline. Is the Netherlands travelling the same path as their southern neighbours Belgium? The main problem is that the big winner of the election is not able to find a stable coalition. Even today there are still many uncertainties with the possible coalition of VVD, CDA and the hardcore rightwing party PVV. Even if this coalition succeeds it is so unstable that it is very likely that it will not survive its 4 years period of governing. So, why not setting up re-elections?

How ambitious it was of Mark Rutte to say that he will make a solid government within 3 weeks time. It was very ambitious indeed, but maybe too ambitious to start with a promise you can’t make. His first action turns out to be a gigantic miscalculation because now, more than 3 months later, there is still not a strong coalition and the coalition he is aiming for is not the sparkling example of solid.

The south neighbours of the Netherlands, Belgium, have been struggling with finding a new cabinet for over 3 years. Will this be the future for the Netherlands? Lets hope not. What was the point of early elections than any-way. Nevertheless instead of dragging something along that is not viable, why keep on dragging than. Maybe it might be a good idea for the big leaders of the Netherlands start to look for a more extreme option like a re-election.

The possible coalition that is been worked on today, VVD, CDA and PVV, is not the school model of a stable Cabinet. There are still many hurdles to be taken that might seem to high and may take to much time to overcome, if they are overcome in the first place. The problem lies in the collaboration between CDA and PVV, who are everything except in line with each other. Although the CDA is leaning towards the right wing, it still puts certain moral values up front that contradict with the extreme right viewing points of the PVV.

So to conclude there is only one quick way out and that are re-elections. This because the possibility will not offer the stability and straight line that it needs at this point of time.

The credit crisis (real reason for problems?)

Without the European Union member states would face far larger consequences than they do today. It is said that the reason why the crises did not hit the member states as hard as predicted at forehand because of the European Union. But how come that certain member struggle to survive these days.

Greece is the most obvious example of this, but Spain and Italy are in the same package. These countries are not able to keep there financial planning in control. How is this possible even with a “strict” financial control from the European Union?

Is this a consequence from the crises or is this a result of bad financial management? In my opinion this is a result from bad financial management. The media brings the news concerning this topic as it is something of the past year. On the contrary, Spain receives already for the last 30 years intensive financial support from the European Union to strengthen this region, because it was lacking behind with the other member states. Italy has been on the edge of bankruptcy for the last 40 years. It just indicates that this was just the final drip that topped the bucket and let it overflow.

This indicates that when the European union was formed and Spain and Italy where allowed to join there was a bad financial control. Nevertheless the EU was recently enlarged with new members. Again the EU set out strict rules and goals that those potential new entries should have reached. Was this actually the case? Or do we have some rotten apples that seem fine but will affect the other apples in the future? Only time can tell.

To conclude I would like to say that the EU should follow its own rules without exemption. This to prevent actions to clean up what could have been prevented. Not only does this reduce the risk for other members and the EU as a whole, but it will be less costly as well. This can also be a reason for successful member states to get out of the EU because who likes cleaning up someone else’s mess.