1. Follow the essay format and have an introduction, body, and conclusion section.
2. 3- 5 pages.
3. APA format.
4. Contain a reference page with at least 5 authoritative sources.
Justification
This is a good essay for the following
reasons.
·
The essay meets all the
requirements with regards to page length, format, and page count.
·
The introduction starts
with a hook that then followed by background information that set the context
for the essay.
·
The introduction is
strengthened by the inclusion of a Toulmin style thesis statement that
describes the claim and warrants/evidences for the claim advanced.
·
The essay is logically
structured with an introduction, body and conclusion. Concluding sentences and
topic sentences serve to make transitions between body paragraphs.
·
While the topic sentences
introduce the body paragraphs, they also relate back to the warrants/evidences
in the topic sentence.
·
The body paragraphs all
have evidences within each paragraph that back up topic statement and its
importance.
·
The conclusion starts by
reintroducing the thesis statement then generalizes the evidence contained in
the body paragraphs. The conclusion ends by emphasizing the main theme and
provides a take-away to the audience.
Argumentative Essay Organization Key:
Hook
Background
Thesis Statement
Topic Sentence
Discussion/Analysis
Concluding Sentence
Summary
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.
=========================================================
