안녕하세요! Homeworkvan 입니다 :)
예상했던 시간보다 포스팅을 너무 늦게 해버렸네요.. ㅠ
포스팅 업데이트 기다리시던 분들 죄송합니다~!
아무쪼록, 이번 포스트에서는 약속드렸던 만큼 Argumentative Essay 샘플을 올려 드릴거에요! 어떻게 하면, Argumentative Essay를 작성해서 좋은 점수를 받을수있는지, 그리고 Argumentative Essay 쓰는 방법에 대해서 알려드리도록 할게요!
한글로는 논증적 혹은 논쟁적 에세이라고 불리고 있더라구요~ Argumentative Essay 또한 정말 자주나오는 에세이 방식중에 하나이기때문에 영어권에서 공부하시는분들은 대학교 영어 수업에서 한번쯤은 꼭 접해보셨을거라 생각되네요 :)
혹시 논증적 논쟁적 에세이 아웃라인 관련 과제 받으시거나 Argumentative Essay 를 어떻게 작성되어야하는지 궁금하신분들은 참고 하시면 정말 좋을것같아요!!
그럼 Argumentative Essay 잘 쓰는 방법 샘플 확인해보세요!
감사합니다 :)
The Challenge of
Euroscepticism: The Growing Resentment over European Integration
The vote by the United Kingdom to
exist the European Union (EU) was an existential shock to British and EU
relations and a wake-up call to the growing skepticism towards the European
Union. The EU represents a heterogeneity
of diverse interests whose national interests are constantly compromised to
comply with the bloc’s unified international agenda (Jones, Menon, &
Weatherill, 2012). This integration has been positive in that it has imparted
political and economic strength towards member countries that would not have
been possible prior to their integration. Dubbed Eurosceptics, the term has
been in use for decades to describe the group of persons who question the benefits
of European integration (Kattago,
2017). Not all countries have been positive in implementing the
supranational policies of the EU and resulted in political divergence in those
in support and in opposition to the EU project. However, Eurosceptics pose as
an important stumbling block towards the ability of the EU to compete in an
increasingly globally-competitive world. Despite efforts to deepen the
connection between EU member states, Euroscepticism has been on a rise as a
result of the 2008 financial crisis, the migrant challenge in Europe, the
bureaucracy and transparency within the EU, and a rise in popularity in Eurosceptic
parties.
The damaging impact of the 2008
financial crisis and the resulting remedial measures has fueled the Euroscepticism
not only among debt-ridden Euro nations, but among all other constituent
countries. Part of the formation of the EU was informed by the need to form an
alliance that could had a stronger bargaining power in global markets
comparable to other powers such as the US and later China (Jones et al., 2012).
This economic union saw the respective governments tie their economic policies,
laws and regulations and established a common currency to be used among member
states. This development, in turn, tied
the economic fates of the different member states into one. While most
countries have a certain level of debt, the 2008 financial crisis exacerbated
these debt levels leading to a debt crisis in many nations. In particular,
countries such as Spain and Greece whose economies are dependent on tourism
were affected more as consumers worldwide cut down on travel due to lower
disposable incomes (Pavolini,
León, Guillén, & Ascoli, 2015). Affected Euro countries received
billions of emergency funding and later established austerity measures to
control the high levels of debt experienced. The unpopular austerity measures
are directly related to the rise of the far-left Syriza party in Greece which
has been vocally against the EU (Stavrakakis
& Katsambekis, 2014). Additionally, the failure of Greece to meet
repayment terms and constant debt restructuring deals have thrown doubt in the
continued existence of the European Union project as lesser impacted countries
are forced, by virtue of being in an economic union, to financially support
debt-ridden member countries. Overall, among the most significant impacts of
the 2008 financial crisis was to erode the special relationship enjoyed among
European nations.
More recently, the European migrant
crisis and the social burden experienced among the populace has fueled doubt on
whether the supranational decision-making systems serve to meet the best
interests of member states. Due to its proximity to the conflict-ridden Africa
and Middle East regions, the European Union has been an attractive destination
for millions of displaced persons seeking stability, safety, and prosperity.
This journey has primarily been carried out by foot and by boat with the border
nations of Spain, Greece, and Malta facing the brunt of the sea-bound traffic
while Bulgaria and Hungary have faced the majority of the foot-traffic. In the
EU, the member nations had codified the Dublin regulation - a unified asylum
policy that stipulated that the country of entry would be responsible for a
refugee (Jones et al., 2012). This fact meant that border EU countries
experienced disproportionate responsibility. The absence of quotas in the initial period of
the crisis meant that these border nations were left to bore the greater
responsibility of taking care of immigrants over other interior EU nations. The record flow of immigrants into these
destination countries and the social burden in providing food and safety to
these groups have given rise to anti-immigrant tension (Kattago, 2017). This development has reduced
the popularity of continued integration among affected EU countries as they see
disintegration as a means to institute stricter immigration policies that
reduce the economic and social burden faced.
Related, European solidarity has been
put to the rest following increased terrorist attacks on European social that
has created a climate of resentment and feat. In November 2015, France was the
victim of a terror attack in the Paris metropolis that left 130 dead and 430
injured following multiple bombings and shootings over the course of one night (Kepel,
2017). The attack was blamed on ISIS militants whom had placed terror cells in
the country. This attack and others within Europe such as those in Germany and
the UK demonstrate a significant terror threat within the EU region. However,
by virtue of global politics, some EU countries such as France and the UK are
more at risk as compared to states such as those in Western Europe. Moreover,
terror laws and intelligence systems are not standardized between the different
countries leading to challenges in response coordination. According to Markortoff (2016), the wake of
the Paris attacks led to the establishment of the European Counter Terrorism
Centre but more than a year later, over 90% of the information submitted for
counter-terrorism purposes has come from only five EU member states. Such
statistics reinforce the idea of lack of cross-border cooperation in the
political and economic union. More importantly, terror attacks and unquailed
cross-border movement has provided fodder for Eurosceptic parties in Europe to
shift public sentiment against the EU.
Beyond issues with migrants, debt,
and terrorism, Euroscepticism is part of a long-standing interest over the
legitimacy of the EU and the bureaucracy of the system. Among skeptics, the
image of the EU has been a bureaucracy that establishes policies with little
democracy and transparency leading to apathy and discontent. According to Ford and Goodwin (2017), the
transfer of decision-making powers away from the national level to the European
level has raised concerns on a deficit of democracy as national representative
institutions face a reduced role in decision making. In that, the perception is
national parliaments are unable to enact legislation not approved by the
European Commission. However, this perception of a reduced role in
decision-making does not match reality as EU citizens have indirect representation
through the Council of the European Union and direct representation through the
European Parliament (Jones et al., 2012). Moreover, concerns have been fielded
by skeptics on the transparency of the EU. Research has shown that the complexity
of the EU legislative process raises legitimate concerns on transparency with
the legislation impacting on the entire populace (Baratta, 2014). Additionally,
research by Brandsma (2018) on proceedings of the European Parliament
committees evidence a shroud of secrecy as the main EU institutions engaged in
closed-door negotiations in policy making processes. This process undermines
the claims of transparency in the EU legislative process. Related, the
administrative functions of the EU contribute to a large bureaucracy and
associated high administrative expense. This expense budget has been a bone of
contention among skeptics fueling the negative sentiment on the bureaucracy of
the EU system.
Finally, the rise of nationalism and
populism in Europe has increased anxiety on continued European integration and
parties ride on a platform of disintegration. In June 2016, the UK run a
special referendum to determine the countries continued stay in the EU. The
pro-exit group was led by vocal EU detractors who perceived the UK’s
relationship with the EU as limiting the country’s national sovereignty (Ford & Goodwin, 2017). The
fallout by these skeptic parties was that the UK chose to leave the EU.
However, these parties are not exclusive to the UK. In fact, the 2014 capture
of European Parliament seats by vocal Eurosceptic parties such as the UKIP in
the UK, Danish People’s Party in Denmark, the Syriza Party in Greece, and the
National Front in France demonstrated the increasing clout of Euroscepticism in
the EU. According to the Stokes (2015), there has been a marked decrease in
public faith in not only European institutions but also the European project.
While these parties do not have universal appeal, they are still a vocal
minority with the capacity to mainstream disenchantment and resentment in the
EU. These parties commonly tap into issues such as migrants, globalization,
political elitisms, unemployment, and austerity – matters with popular appeal
among the general public – to idealize a false statement on a failing EU.
Kattago (2019) terms this populism as divisive and capable of disturbing the
fragile peace in Europe. If Brexit is anything to go by, then Eurosceptic
parties present as a real challenge to EU integration.
The continued existence of the EU is
threatened by the fallout from the 2008 global financial crisis, the influx of
migrants into Europe, concerns over democracy and transparency in the EU bureaucracy,
and the rise in nationalist and populist parties in Europe. The financial
crisis brought demonstrated the deep economic ties between member nations and
how a crisis in one nation could extend to the others, and the inability to
independently control economic policies in the union. Additionally, the migrant
crisis has disproportionally burdened the exterior EU member nations and
increased the popularity of disintegration in order to institute independent
immigration policies. This need has also been fueled by an increase in terror
attacks that take advantage of the free movement of persons in Europe and the
lack of proper cooperation in national security among member states. Moreover,
the reduced role in decision making among national legislators and the lack of
transparency in the EU policy making process has increased resentment in the
political union. Eurosceptic parties have leveraged these real concerns to grow
their influence and fuel further division over integration. The seeds of doubt
will only grow if the EU administrative arms fail to institute reforms and
demonstrate to the general European public the benefits of the complex
relationship that is the EU.
References
Baratta, R. (2014). Complexity of EU law in the
domestic implementing process. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 2(3),
293-308.
Brandsma, G. J. (2018). Transparency of EU
informal trilogues through public feedback in the European Parliament: promise
unfulfilled. Journal of European Public Policy, 1-20.
Ford, R., & Goodwin, M. (2017). Britain
after Brexit: A nation divided. Journal of Democracy, 28(1),
17-30.
Jones,
E., Menon, A., & Weatherill, S. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of the European
Union. Oxford: UK, Oxford University Press.
Kattago, S. (2017). The End of the European
Honeymoon?: Refugees, Resentment and the Clash of Solidarities. Anthropological
Journal of European Cultures, 26(1), 35-52.
Kepel, G. (2017). Terror in France: The
rise of jihad in the west (Vol. 64). Princeton University Press.
Markortoff,
K. (2016, April 19). Testing Europe: How terrorism could make or break the
union. CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/19/testing-europe-how-terrorism-could-make-or-break-the-union.html
Pavolini, E., León, M., Guillén, A. M., &
Ascoli, U. (2015). From austerity to permanent strain? The EU and welfare state
reform in Italy and Spain. Comparative European Politics, 13(1),
56-76.
Schumacher, P. Refugee crisis in Europe. In T.
Riggs and K. J. Edgar (Eds.), Immigration
and Migration: In Context (pp. 655-663). Gale.
Stavrakakis, Y., & Katsambekis, G. (2014).
Left-wing populism in the European periphery: the case of SYRIZA. Journal
of political ideologies, 19(2), 119-142.
Stokes, B. (2015). Faith in European project reviving: But most say rise of Eurosceptic
parties is a good thing. Pew Research Center.
=========================================================
The following is PLAGIARISM REPORT for '[논증 논쟁적 에세이 샘플] Argumentative Essay: The Challenge of Euroscepticism Sample - by Homeworkvan'.
COPYRIGHT © 2019. All Rights Reserved by homeworkvan.
