Suchergebnisse

Focuses on the prominence of progressivist and internationalist critiques of the EU in national debates about membership.

This book''s principal aim is to critically address the institutional and substantive legal issues resulting from European enlargement, chiefly those relating to the legal foundations on which the enlarged Union is being built. The accession of new Member States creates the potential for a stronger and more powerful Europe. Realising this potential, however, will depend on the ability of the EU to develop functional and effective governance structures, both at the European level and at the level of the individual Member States.

Ideological nationalism is rising in most EU countries and threatens the unity of the Union. Primarily populist parties use it as a political instrument in their fight for power, presenting the European Union as a danger to national identity. According to Eurosceptical politicians, the EU imposes European identity instead of a national identity. This book argues that not only can those identities coexist, but they can also exacerbate each other. Instead of rejecting nationalism in general, it suggests that the EU should oppose only its ideological forms that lead to xenophobia and hostility toward other nations. At the same time, the books shows that EU policy should protect and support member states' efforts to maintain and preserve their uniqueness and national cultural identity, which is threatened not by European integration, but by inevitable globalization

AbstractA crisis can reveal characteristics of a political order which in normal times remain invisible. Two such moments of clarification hit European Union (EU) countries in quick succession. The euro crisis tested the resolve of leaders and peoples to save the single currency. The geopolitical standoff around Ukraine necessitated a joint response to a show of force. In both cases we saw a 'return of politics'. Geopolitical interests trumped economic ones; a need for government (and not just governance) made itself felt; European politics became more salient and intertwined with domestic politics. In the turmoil, notwithstanding calls for a big leap toward greater unity, the European Union also showed its dynamic in‐between nature. The public perceives this politicisation perfectly, hence both its disenchantment and the calls for more democracy. EU integration, after 'permissive consensus' and 'constraining dissensus', could be moving to the era of binding dissensus.

In October 2019, the European Union adopted the Directive on protecting persons reporting breaches of European Union law, commonly known as the "Whistleblower Protection Directive" (EU Directive). The protection of national policies is beyond the scope of the Directive, as its sole purpose is to encourage people to report "breaches of EU law", ie, to strengthen "enforcement of the Union law and policies in specific areas". The Directive is not concerned with the protection of workers or employees. The Directive treats whistleblowers as an instrument for reporting irregularities. Another proof of the instrumental approach adopted in the Directive is the lack of any financial incentives for whistleblowers. This article's basic thesis is that despite dynamic and multifaceted changes in the economy of individual countries, the accepted model of whistleblowing in the European Union will depend on repeated multidimensional analysis of the principle of the lawyer's loyalty to the organization. The research presented below aims to prove the validity of the adopted thesis.

In October 2019, the European Union adopted the Directive on protecting persons reporting breaches of European Union law, commonly known as the "Whistleblower Protection Directive" (EU Directive). The protection of national policies is beyond the scope of the Directive, as its sole purpose is to encourage people to report "breaches of EU law", ie, to strengthen "enforcement of the Union law and policies in specific areas". The Directive is not concerned with the protection of workers or employees. The Directive treats whistleblowers as an instrument for reporting irregularities. Another proof of the instrumental approach adopted in the Directive is the lack of any financial incentives for whistleblowers. This article's basic thesis is that despite dynamic and multifaceted changes in the economy of individual countries, the accepted model of whistleblowing in the European Union will depend on repeated multidimensional analysis of the principle of the lawyer's loyalty to the organization. The research presented below aims to prove the validity of the adopted thesis.