No description available.

<p>This essay is about Turkey and its relation to the European union. EU is originally an economic organization; today it has developed to involve other aspect like culture and history. By using theories like motivation and non-decision making I have studied the reason why Turkey is still waiting in the agenda of the union. With the help of the theories I have discussed about Turkey’s possibilities to become a member of the European union. By illustrate some hindrances like the custom union and the European identity, I would explain the reason of the delay for association negotiation for Turkey. This hindrance makes huge obstacles for Turkey but I believe that then the identity within the union evolves Turkey can be a part of the European union in the future.</p>

This essay is about Turkey and its relation to the European union. EU is originally an economic organization; today it has developed to involve other aspect like culture and history. By using theories like motivation and non-decision making I have studied the reason why Turkey is still waiting in the agenda of the union. With the help of the theories I have discussed about Turkey’s possibilities to become a member of the European union. By illustrate some hindrances like the custom union and the European identity, I would explain the reason of the delay for association negotiation for Turkey. This hindrance makes huge obstacles for Turkey but I believe that then the identity within the union evolves Turkey can be a part of the European union in the future.

Britain's second attempt to seek membership of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1967 has widely been regarded as inevitable. This thesis traces the development of Britain's policy towards the EEC from the accession of the Labour Government in 1964 to the failure of the application for membership in December 1967. Drawing primarily on official British records, it takes as its premise that policy decisions must be reconstructed as they appeared to participants at the time. It therefore places as central the roles and attitudes of key ministers and officials. It seeks to elucidate three main historical themes. First, by assessing the detailed progress of policy, it examines Harold Wilson's own ambiguous attitude towards European membership. Second, it considers how the British approached the Community, analysing Cabinet's acceptance of the policy as well as the conduct of Britain's diplomacy towards the members of the Six. Third, it places Britain's turn to Europe within the context of wider decisions about Britain's foreign and economic policies. It shows that Wilson's policy towards membership of the EEC developed only gradually and under duress, as he initially hoped to create a free trade area in Europe. Wilson did agree to study the implications of membership early in 1966, yet the decisive turning point was the July 1966 sterling crisis. It offers a new interpretation of Britain's approach to the Community, arguing that Wilson's attitude towards the tems of entry emerged only gradually. Britain's diplomacy with the Six foundered on Britain's economic weakness and the ability of General de Gaulle to manipulate his European partners. Although this was a period of considerable transformation in Britain's global orientation, British policy did not represent a decisive break with the past. Decisions were taken reluctantly and piecemeal, in response to economic crisis.

This study examines the explanatory power of the traditional explanations as to what determines public support for EU membership and European integration – the economic explanation and the political values‐based explanation – in the context of the post-communist member states of the EU. Further, an alternative explanation – the communist legacy explanation – is presented and tested. It is hypothesized that a high degree of Soviet influence and suppression during the communist period leads to a low degree of support for EU membership and European integration, because of a willingness to protect oneself from violation of national sovereignty once again. The explanatory power of the traditional explanations does not obtain convincing empirical support, even if many individual predictors are statistically significant as determinants. Communist legacy seems to be important as a determinant of public support for EU membership and European integration. However, the hypothesis can neither be accepted nor rejected, because of the methodological problems associated with the dummy variable approach used in order to test it. Further, the direction of the relationship between communist legacy and public support for EU membership and European integration seems to be two‐fold, rather than one-sided as hypothesized.

No description available.

The following research report will look at a series of domestic factors that posed a threat to Bulgaria’s integration into the European Union in January 2007. In this light, this research report will evaluate the efforts that Bulgarian political leaders have taken to meet those existing domestic political challenges and thus assess Bulgaria’s progress towards meeting the political and economic criteria towards EU membership. This research study will be explained by the theoretical tradition of the multi-level governance approach, which assumes the involvement of supranational, national and sub-national actors in the processes of European integration.

<p>The purpose of this study is to illustrate why Norway is not a member of the EU from a rational choice perspective. In order to fulfil this purpose, two questions will constitute the framework of the study. These are:</p><p>1. What are the arguments of the EU-opposers in the Norwegian EU-debate?</p><p>2. Is it rational for Norway to stand outside the EU?</p><p>The first question was answered by analyzing and mapping out the arguments of the Norweigan EU-opponents and then using a critical literature study to analyse them. To demarcate the study, only the arguments of the parliamentary parties that are opposing a Norwegian EU-membership, and the official organisation Nei til EU (No to the EU) were included. The second question was tested by using a rational choice theory and a number of keywords from the classical rational actor model; objectives, alternatives, consequences and choice. These keywords constituted the main analyzing instrument of the study and was applied on the empirical material.</p><p>The main arguments of the opposers of a Norweigan EU-membership, are widely spoken democracy, freedom of action, environment and solidarity. The debate is hard to map out because of its general character but is very homogeneous. The second question is answered partly in the light of the first one and the result shows that it is rational for Norway to stay outside the EU today, but the question may have to be reassessed in the future, and probably will be since the debate is still so fervent.</p>

From 1971 UK has committed herself to the new brand name of Europeanism. Since that time Britain is continuously forced to adjust itself to the EEC regulations. The questions brought up in this thesis are about an outcome from the EU membership as well as reflection on Britain's regional policies. The work is streamed towards better understanding of main roles and activities that Britain was, is and will consign to the European Union. Moreover, there are several issues which bringing up a point of having some disadvantages from EU member. But with a time people could be concerned of more benefits that EU membership brought as an effective economic strategy is proved.

The study examines Turkey&rsquo / s responses in the face of the formation of European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP). The political responses over ESDP have two dimensions. From the viewpoint of Turkey, at the beginning she intended to participate in the process of decision making structure of the ESDP. Therefore, it can be concluded that Turkey is not against the formation of the ESDP. However, as a non-EU European NATO member, Turkey&rsquo / s integration into European security and defense was welcomed but she was excluded from the strategic decision making structure of ESDP. As a result of this, formation of ESDP undermined the position of Turkey who has rights inherited over European security from Western European Union Associate and NATO Memberships. As Turkey was excluded from the decision making structure of ESDP, she put reservations to the EU-NATO cooperation as a NATO member. Secondly, from the viewpoint of European Union, she is trying to keep the decision making authority of ESDP in EU itself by excluding non-EU European states. Besides, Turkey&rsquo / s full integration into European Security and Defense Policy was made contingent to the Turkey&rsquo / s European Union membership. Turkey&rsquo / s EU membership process should not be linked with her full participation, including decision making structure of the ESDP. European defense developments were considered to be as a challenge to NATO and US superiority in Europe. Developments in European defense and Turkey&rsquo / s participation in this process were also examined in this study.