The European Union: Questions and Answers
Kristin Archick
Specialist in European Affairs
January 13July 24, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS21372
The European Union: Questions and Answers
Summary
The European Union (EU) is a political and economic partnership that represents a unique form
of cooperation among sovereign countries. The Union is the latest stage in a process of
integration begun after World War II, initially by six Western European countries, to foster
interdependence and make another war in Europe unthinkable. Today, the EU is composed of 28
member states, including most of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and has helped to
promote peace, stability, and economic prosperity throughout the European continent.
The EU has been built through a series of binding treaties, and over the years, EU member states
have sought to harmonize laws and adopt common policies on an increasing number of economic,
social, and political issues. EU member states share a customs union; a single market in which
goods, people, and capital move freely; a common trade policy; and a common agricultural
policy. Nineteen EU member states use a common currency (the euro). In addition, the EU has
been developing a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), which includes a Common
Security and Defense Policy (CSDP), and pursuing cooperation in the area of Justice and Home
Affairs (JHA) to forge common internal security measures.
EU member states work together through commonseveral institutions to set policy and to promote their
collective interests. Key EU institutions include the European Council, composed of EU Heads of
State or Government, which acts as the strategic guide and driving force for EU policy; the
European Commission, which upholds the common interest of the Union as a whole and
functions as the EU’s executive; the Council of the European Union (also known as the Council
of Ministers), which represents the national governments; and the directly elected European
Parliament, which represents the citizens of the EU.
EU decision-making processes and the role played by the EU institutions vary depending on the
subject under consideration. For most economic and social issues, EU member states have largely
pooled their national sovereignty, and EU decision-making has a supranational quality. Decisions
in other areas, such as foreign policy, require the unanimous consensus of all 28 member states.
The Lisbon Treaty, which took effect in December 2009, is the EU’s latest attempt to reform its
governing institutions and decision-making processes in order to enable an enlarged EU to
function more effectively. The Lisbon Treaty also seeks to give the EU a stronger voice in the
foreign policy realm and to increase democratic transparency within the EU.
The United States has strongly supported the European integration project since its inception as a
means to foster democratic states and robuststrong trading partners in Europe. The United States and the
EU have a dynamic political partnership and share a huge trade and investment relationship. To
expand and strengthen the transatlantic economy even further, the United States and the EU are
pursuing a comprehensive and ambitious free trade agreement, known as the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Nevertheless, some tensions remain, ranging from longstanding U.S.-EU trade disputes to climate change. Despite close U.S.-EU cooperation on the
crisis in Ukraine, differences also exist over how best to manage relations with Russia in the
longer term. And data privacy continues to be a key U.S.-EU sticking point, especially following
the unauthorized disclosures since June 2013 of alleged U.S. surveillance activities in Europe.
This
Partnership (T-TIP). At the same time, some long-standing U.S.-EU trade disputes remain, as do
tensions on issues such as climate change and data protection. Many U.S. officials, including
some Members of Congress, are also concerned that the multiple challenges currently facing the
EU—from the Greek debt crisis and the upcoming UK referendum on EU membership to
migration and the rise of anti-EU populist political parties—may have significant implications for
the EU’s future and its ability to be a robust and effective U.S. partner in the years ahead. This
report serves as a primer on the EU and provides a brief description of U.S.-EU relations
that may
be of interest in the 114th Congress. Also see CRS Report IN10065, The 2014 European
Parliament Elections: Outcomes and Implications, by Kristin Archick.
Congressional Research Service
The European Union: Questions and Answers
Contents
What Is the European Union? .......................................................................................................... 1
How Does the EU Work? ................................................................................................................. 1
How Is the EU Governed? ............................................................................................................... 2
What Is the Lisbon Treaty? .............................................................................................................. 3
What Is the Euro and the Eurozone Crisis? ..................................................................................... 4
Why and How Is the EU Enlarging?................................................................................................ 56
Does the EU Have a Foreign Policy? .............................................................................................. 67
Does the EU Have a Defense Policy? .............................................................................................. 7
What Is the Relationship of the EU to NATO? ................................................................................ 8
What Is Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)? ....................................................................................... 89
Does the EU Have a Trade Policy and Process? .............................................................................. 9
How Do EU Countries and Citizens View the EU? ....................................................................... 10
Does the United States Have a Formal Relationship with the EU? ............................................... 11
Who Are U.S. Officials’ Counterparts in the EU? ......................................................................... 1112
How Are U.S.-EU Political Relations Doing? ............................................................................... 1112
How Are U.S.-EU Economic Relations Doing? ............................................................................ 13
Figures
Figure A-1. Member States and Candidates .................................................................................. 15
Appendixes
Appendix. Map of the EU and Aspirant Countries ........................................................................ 15
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 1415
Congressional Research Service
The European Union: Questions and Answers
What Is the European Union?
The European Union (EU) is a political and economic partnership that represents a unique form
of cooperation among 28 member states (see the map in the Appendix).1 Built through a series of
binding treaties, the Union is
the latest stage in a process of integration begun after World War II
to promote peace and
economic prosperity in Europe. Its founders hoped that by creating
specified areas in which
member states agreed to share sovereignty—initially in coal and steel
production, economics and
trade, and nuclear energy—it would promote interdependence and
make another war in Europe
unthinkable. Since the 1950s, this European integration project has
expanded to encompass other
economic sectors; a customs union; a single market in which goods,
people, and capital move
freely; a common trade policy; a common agricultural policy; many
aspects of social and
environmental policy; and a common currency (the euro) that is used by 19
member states. Since
the mid-1990s, EU member states have also taken significant steps toward
political integration,
with decisions to develop a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)
and efforts to promote
cooperation in the area of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA), which is aimed
at forging common
internal security measures.
How Does the EU Work?
EU member states work together through common institutions (see next question) to set policy
and promote their collective interests. Over the past several decades, EU members have
progressively committed to harmonizing laws and adopting joint policies on an extensive and
increasing number of issues. However, decision-making processes and the role of the EU
institutions vary depending on the subject under consideration.
On a multitude of economic and social policies (previously termed Pillar One, or the European
Community), EU members have essentially pooled their sovereignty and EU institutions hold
executive authority. Integration in these fields—which range from trade and agriculture to
education and the environment—has traditionally been the most developed and far-reaching. EU
decisions in such areas often have a supranational quality because most are subject to a complex
majority voting system among the member states and are legally binding.
For issues falling under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (once known as Pillar Two),
EU member states have agreed to cooperate, but most decision-making is intergovernmental and
requires the unanimous agreement of all 28 EU countries. Thus, member states retain more
discretion over their participation as any one country can veto a decision. For many years,
unanimous agreement among the member states was also largely the rule for policy-making in the
Justice and Home Affairs area (formerly Pillar Three); recently, however, EU member states
agreed to accelerate integration in the JHA field by extending the use of the EU’s majority voting
system to most JHA issues and giving EU institutions a greater role in JHA policy-making.
1
The 28 members of the EU are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
Congressional Research Service
1
The European Union: Questions and Answers
How Is the EU Governed?
The EU is governed by several institutions. They do not correspond exactly to the traditional
branches of government or division of power in representative democracies. Rather, they embody
the EU’s dual supranational and intergovernmental character:
•
The European Council acts as the strategic guide for EU policy. It is composed of
the Heads of State or Government of the EU’s member states and the President of
the European Commission; it meets several times a year in what are often termed
“EU summits.” The European Council is headed by a President, appointed by the
member states to organize the Council’s work and facilitate consensus.
•
The European Commission is essentially the EU’s executive and upholds the
common interest of the EU as a whole. It implements and manages EU decisions
and common policies, ensures that the provisions of the EU’s treaties are carried
out properly, and has the sole right of legislative initiative in most policy areas. It
is composed of 28 Commissioners, one from each country, who are appointed by
agreement among the member states to five-year terms and approved by the
European Parliament. One Commissioner serves as Commission President; the
others hold distinct portfolios (e.g., agriculture, energy, trade). On many issues,
the Commission handles negotiations with outside countries. The Commission is
also the EU’s primary administrative entity.
•
The Council of the European Union (also called the Council of Ministers)
represents the 28 national governments. The Council enacts legislation, usually
based on proposals put forward by the Commission, and agreed to (in most cases)
by the European Parliament. Different ministers from each country participate in
Council meetings depending on the subject under consideration (e.g., foreign
ministers would meet to discuss the Middle East, agriculture ministers to discuss
farm subsidies). Most decisions are subject to a complex majority voting system,
but some areas—such as foreign and defense policy, taxation, or accepting new
members—require unanimity. The Presidency of the Council rotates among the
member states, changing every six months; the country holding the Presidency
helps set agenda priorities and organizes most of the work of the Council.
•
The European Parliament represents the citizens of the EU. It consists of 751
members who are directly elected for five-year terms (the most recent elections
were in May 2014). Each EU country has a number of seats roughly proportional
to the size of its population. Although the Parliament cannot initiate legislation, it
shares legislative power with the Council of Ministers in many policy areas,
giving it the right to accept, amend, or reject the majority of proposed EU
legislation in a process known as the “ordinary legislative procedure” or “codecision.” The Parliament also decides on the allocation of the EU’s budget
jointly with the Council. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) caucus
according to political affiliation, rather than nationality; there are seveneight political
groups and a number of non-attached MEPs.
•
Other institutions also play key roles. The Court of Justice interprets EU laws
and its rulings are binding; a Court of Auditors monitors financial management;
the European Central Bank manages the euro and EU monetary policy; and
advisory committees represent economic, social, and regional interests.
Congressional Research Service
2
The European Union: Questions and Answers
What Is the Lisbon Treaty?
On December 1, 2009, the EU’s latest institutional reform endeavor—the Lisbon Treaty—came
into force following its ratification by all of the EU’s then-27 member states. It is the final
product of an effort begun in 2002 to reform the EU’s governing institutions and decision-making
processes in order to enable an enlarged Union to function more effectively. In addition, the treaty
seeks to give the EU a stronger and more coherent voice and identity on the world stage, and to
increase democracy and transparency within the EU.2
To help accomplish these goals, the Lisbon Treaty establishes two new leadership positions. The
new President of the European Council, chosen by the member states for a term of two and onehalf years (renewable once), now chairs the meetings of the 28 EU Heads of State or
Government, serves as coordinator and spokesman for their work, seeks to ensure policy
continuity, and strives to forge consensus among the member states. The Lisbon Treaty also
created a dual-hatted position of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and
Security Policy to serve essentially as the EU’s chief diplomat. The High Representative is both
an agent of the Council of Ministers—and thus speaks for the member states on foreign policy
issues—as well as a Vice President of the European Commission, responsible for managing most
of the Commission’s diplomatic activities and foreign assistance programs (see “Does the EU
Have a Foreign Policy?” for more information).
Among other key measures, the Lisbon Treaty simplifies the EU’s qualified majority voting
system and expands its use to policy areas previously subject to member state unanimity in the
Council of Ministers; this change was intended in part to speed EU decision-making and improve
its efficiency. Nevertheless, in practice, member states will likely still strive for consensus on
sensitive policy issues (such as police cooperation, immigration, and countering terrorism) that
are usually viewed as central to a nation-state’s sovereignty. At the same time, the mere
possibility of a vote may make member state governments more willing to compromise and reach
a common policy decision.
In addition, the Lisbon Treaty increases the relative power of the European Parliament in an effort
to improve democratic accountability. It strengthens the Parliament’s role in the EU’s budgetary
process and extends the use of the “co-decision” procedure to more policy areas, including
agriculture and home affairs issues.3 As such, the treaty gives the Parliament a say equal to that of
the member states in the Council of Ministers over the vast majority of EU legislation (with some
exceptions, such as most aspects of foreign and defense policy). In addition, the Lisbon Treaty
provides national parliaments with a degree of greater authority to challenge draft EU legislation
and allows for the possibility of new legislative proposals based on citizen initiatives.
2
The Lisbon Treaty amends, rather than replaces, existing EU treaties. The history of the Lisbon Treaty is replete with
contentious negotiations among the member states and numerous ratification hurdles; it evolved from the proposed EU
constitutional treaty, which was rejected in French and Dutch national referendums in 2005. Despite the failure of the
EU constitutional treaty, experts say the Lisbon Treaty preserves over 90% of the substance of the original treaty. For
more information, see CRS Report RS21618, The European Union’s Reform Process: The Lisbon Treaty, by Kristin
Archick and Derek E. Mix.
3
The Lisbon Treaty technically renames the “co-decision” procedure as the “ordinary legislative procedure.”
Congressional Research Service
3
The European Union: Questions and Answers
Key EU Positions and Current Leaders
The President of the European Council is Donald Tusk, a former prime minister of Poland. Appointed by the
member states for a two-and-one-half year term, Tusk assumed office on December 1, 2014.
The President of the European Commission is Jean-Claude Juncker, a former prime minister of Luxembourg. The
so-called “Juncker Commission” took office in November 2014. The Commission President and the other 27
Commissioners are appointed by agreement among the member states, subject to the approval of the European
Parliament. In selecting the Commission President, member states must take into account the results of the most
recent European Parliament elections.
LatviaLuxembourg holds the Presidency of the Council of Ministers (often termed the “EU Presidency”) from January to June
2015; LuxembourgJuly to
December 2015; the Netherlands will hold the Presidency from July to December 2015January to June 2016.
Every two-and-a-half years (twice per each five-year parliamentary term) Members of the European Parliament (MEPs)
elect the President of the European Parliament, currently German MEP Martin Schulz, of the center-left
Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) parliamentary group. Schulz was re-elected to this position in
July 2014, following the most recent European Parliament elections.
The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is Federica Mogherini of Italy. The
High Representative is chosen by agreement among the member states but like the other members of the
Commission, must also be approved by the European Parliament.
What Is the Euro and the Eurozone Crisis?
Nineteen of the EU’s 28 member states belong to the EU’s Economic and Monetary Union
(EMU); these 19 countries have agreed to closely coordinate their economic and monetary
policies and use a common single currency, the euro.use a common single currency, the euro, and are often
collectively referred to as “the Eurozone.”4 The gradual introduction of the euro began
in January
1999 when 11 EU member states became the first to adopt it and banks and many
businesses businesses
started using the euro as a unit of account. Euro notes and coins replaced national
currencies in
participating states in January 2002. EMUEurozone participants also share a common central
bank—the
European Central Bank (ECB)—and a common monetary policy. However, they do
not have a
common fiscal policy, and member states retain control over decisions about national
spending spending
and taxation, subject to certain conditions designed to maintain budgetary discipline.
The 19 EMU participants are often collectively referred to as “the Eurozone.” Lithuania became
Lithuania
became the most recent country to join the Eurozone on January 1, 2015.
The “Eurozone crisis” began as a sovereign (or public) debt crisis in Greece in 2009-2010. Over
the previous decade, the Greek government borrowed heavily from international capital markets
to pay for its budget and trade deficits. This left Greece vulnerable to shifts in investor
confidence. As investors became increasingly nervous in 2009 that the government’s debt was too
high amid the global financial crisis, markets demanded higher interest rates for Greek bonds,
which drove up Greece’s borrowing costs. By early 2010, Greece risked defaulting on its public
debt. Market concerns then spread to several other Eurozone countries with high, potentially
unsustainable levels of public debt, including Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and Italy. The debt
problems of these countries also posed a risk to the European banking system, slowed economic
growth, and led to increased unemployment in many Eurozone countries.
European leaders and EU institutions have responded to the crisis and sought to stem its
contagion contagion
with a variety of policy mechanisms. In order to avoid default, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and
Cyprus received “bail-out” loans from the EU and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Such
assistance, however, came with some strings attached, including the imposition of strict austerity
4
The 19 members of the EU that use the euro are: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain.
Congressional Research Service
4
The European Union: Questions and Answers
Portugal, and Cyprus received “bail-out” loans from the EU and the International Monetary Fund
(IMF). Such assistance, however, came with some strings attached, including the imposition of
strict austerity measures. Spain (the Eurozone’s fourth-largest economy) also enacted significant
austerity measures of its own austerity
measures, and Eurozone leaders approved a recapitalization plan for Spanish
banks. Other key
initiatives have included the creation of a permanent EU financial assistance
facility (the
European Stability Mechanism, or ESM) to provide emergency support to Eurozone
countries in
financial trouble; a decision to create a single bank supervisor for the Eurozone,
under which the
ESM would be able to inject cash directly into ailing Eurozone banks; and ECB
efforts to calm
the financial markets by purchasing large portions of European sovereign debt and
providing providing
significant infusions of credit into the European banking system.5
The Eurozone crisis began to abate to some degree in late 2012, as market confidence became
more positive. Ireland more positive, and,
despite some turbulence in 2013, the situation has stabilized in most Eurozone countries. Ireland
exited the EU-IMF financial assistance program in December 2013, and
Portugal did so in May
2014; both countries have returned to the bond markets. EU aid to Spanish
banks has also ceased. However
Nevertheless, experts assert that the Eurozone remains fragile as it struggles
with deflationary pressures and; many member states continue to
experience weak economic
growth and high unemployment. Some analysts suggest that political uncertainty in Greece and
questions about its continued commitment to austerity plans could reignite concerns about the
stability of the Eurozone.
The Eurozone crisis has also had significant political implications, resulting in the fall of some
national governments, and forcing EU leaders to grapple with both the euro’s future viability and
the desirability of further EU integration. Some view EU efforts to address the crisis as too timid
and too slow in part because of political differences among EU member states and between those
in and outside of the Eurozone. Key points of tension have arisen over the proper balance
between imposing austerity measures versus stimulating growth, and whether and to what extent
the Eurozone countries should pursue closer fiscal integration. In January 2012, 25 of the EU’s
then-27 member states agreed on a new “fiscal compact” aimed at strengthening fiscal discipline
within the EU (in part by requiring national budgets to be in balance or in surplus), providing for
a more automatic imposition of sanctions should a country breach EU fiscal rules, and improving
the coordination of national economic policies; this pact entered into force in January 2013.5 growth and high unemployment. In particular, Greece’s economy and
banking system remain in severe distress.
In January 2015, Greek elections resulted in a new government led by the leftist, anti-austerity
Syriza party. For months, negotiations between the Syriza-led government and Greece’s Eurozone
and IMF creditors on conditions for disbursing financial assistance foundered on Greek demands
for debt relief and an easing of austerity. By the end of June 2015, Greece failed to make a
payment to the IMF, and the government closed the banks and imposed capital controls. On July
5, Greek voters rejected calls from fellow Eurozone members for further austerity in a public
referendum, seemingly increasing the possibility of “Grexit,” or a Greek exit from the Eurozone.
On July 12-13, however, the Syriza-led government acceded to EU demands for more austerity
and economic reforms in exchange for the badly needed financial assistance. Although “Grexit”
appears to have been averted for now, Greece and its creditors must engage in detailed
negotiations for additional “bail out” money, Greece faces a long and uncertain road toward
economic recovery, and the threat of “Grexit” may still loom in the longer term.6
The most recent crisis over Greece has significantly challenged the EU as an institution and the
future of the EU integration project. From its start five years ago, the Eurozone crisis forced EU
leaders to grapple with weaknesses in the Eurozone’s structure and the common currency’s future
viability. It also generated tensions among member states over the proper balance between
imposing austerity measures versus stimulating growth and whether greater EU fiscal integration
was necessary. The fraught negotiations with Greece since early 2015 have produced an even
higher degree of acrimony and a serious lack of trust among EU member states. Many analysts
suggest that the crisis has threatened the core EU principle of solidarity and point to it as an
indication that member states are increasingly prioritizing narrow national agendas. Some suggest
that given how very close the EU came to “Grexit,” the crisis has undermined the integrity of the
Eurozone and raised questions about its irreversibility. Others contend that the EU has taken steps
over the last five years to strengthen the Eurozone’s architecture and improve fiscal discipline and
has found a way to “muddle through” the current crisis over Greece, and that EU governments
and leaders remain strongly committed to the EU project.
5
For more information, see CRS Report R42377, The Eurozone Crisis: Overview and Issues for Congress, coordinated
by Rebecca M. Nelson.
6
Also see CRS Insight IN10303, Crisis in Greece: Political Implications, by Paul Belkin; and CRS Insight IN10295,
Economic Crisis in Greece, by Rebecca M. Nelson.
Congressional Research Service
5
The European Union: Questions and Answers
Why and How Is the EU Enlarging?
The EU views the enlargement process as an extraordinary opportunity to promote stability and
prosperity in Europe. Since 2004, EU membership has grown from 15 to 28 countries, bringing in
most states of Central and Eastern Europe. The EU began as the European Coal and Steel
Community in 1952 with six members (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the
Netherlands). In 1973, Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom joined what had then become
known as the European Community. Greece joined in 1981, followed by Spain and Portugal in
1986. In 1995, Austria, Finland, and Sweden acceded to the present-day European Union. In
2004, the EU welcomed eight former communist countries—the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia—plus Cyprus and Malta as new
members. Bulgaria and Romania joined in 2007. Croatia became the 28th member of the EU on
July 1, 2013.
5
For more information, see CRS Report R42377, The Eurozone Crisis: Overview and Issues for Congress, coordinated
by Rebecca M. Nelson.
Congressional Research Service
5
The European Union: Questions and Answers
In order to be eligible for EU membership, countries must first meet a set of established criteria,
including having a functioning democracy and market economy. Once a country becomes an
official candidate, accession negotiations are a long and complex process in which the applicant
must adopt and implement a massive body of EU laws and regulations. Analysts contend that the
carefully managed process of enlargement is one of the EU’s most powerful policy tools, and
that, over the years, it has helped transform many European countries into functioning
democracies and more affluent societies.
Six countries are currently recognized by the EU as official candidates for membership: Albania,
Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Turkey, and Iceland.67 All are at different stages of the accession
process. For example, while Albania was just named as an official candidate in June 2014,
accession negotiations have been underway with Turkey since 2005. It will likely be many years
before most of the current candidates are ready to join the EU. Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo
are also recognized as potential future EU candidates (see Appendix).
The EU maintains that the enlargement door remains open to any European country that fulfills
the EU’s political and economic criteria for membership. Nevertheless, some European leaders
and many EU citizens are cautious about additional EU expansion, especially to Turkey or
countries farther east, such as Georgia or Ukraine, in the longer term. Worries about continued
EU enlargement range from fears of unwanted migrant labor to the implications of an everexpanding Union on the EU’s institutions, finances, and overall identity. Observers note that such
qualms are particularly apparent with respect to Turkey’s possible EU accession, given Turkey’s
large size, predominantly Muslim culture, and relatively less prosperous economy.78
7
The EU officially continues to recognize Iceland as a candidate for membership, but Iceland’s accession negotiations
have been on hold since May 2013, when a new Icelandic coalition government largely opposed to EU membership
took office. In March 2015, Iceland’s government requested that Iceland should no longer be regarded as a candidate
country, although it did not formally withdraw Iceland’s application for EU membership.
8
For more information, see CRS Report RS21344, European Union Enlargement, by Kristin Archick and Vincent L.
Morelli.
Congressional Research Service
6
The European Union: Questions and Answers
Does the EU Have a Foreign Policy?
The EU has a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), in which member states adopt
common policies, undertake joint actions, and pursue coordinated strategies in areas in which
they can reach consensus. CFSP was established in 1993; the eruption of hostilities in the Balkans
in the early 1990s and the EU’s limited tools for responding to the crisis convinced EU leaders
that the Union had to improve its ability to act collectively in the foreign policy realm. Previous
EU attempts to further such political integration had foundered for decades on member state
concerns about protecting national sovereignty and different foreign policy prerogatives.
CFSP decision-making is dominated by the member states and requires the unanimous agreement
of all 28. Member states must also ensure that national policies are in line with agreed EU
strategies and positions (e.g., imposing sanctions on a country). However, CFSP does not
preclude individual member states pursuing their own national foreign policies or conducting
their own national diplomacy.
CFSP remains a work in progress. Although many view the EU as having made considerable
strides in forging common policies on a range of international issues, from the Balkans to the
6
Although the EU continues to recognize Iceland as an official candidate for membership, Iceland’s accession
negotiations have been on hold since May 2013, when a new Icelandic coalition government largely opposed to EU
membership took office. Press reports suggest that Iceland may formally withdraw its application in 2015.
7
For more information, see CRS Report RS21344, European Union Enlargement, by Kristin Archick and Vincent L.
Morelli.
Congressional Research Service
6
The European Union: Questions and Answers
Middle East peace process to Iran, others argue that the credibility of CFSP too often suffers from
an inability to reach consensus. The launch of the U.S.-led war in Iraq in 2003, for example, was
extremely divisive among EU members, and they were unable to agree on a common EU
position. Others note that some differences in viewpoint are inevitable among 28 countries that
still retain different approaches, cultures, histories, and relationships—and often different national
interests—when it comes to foreign policy.
The EU’s Lisbon Treaty seeks to bolster CFSP by increasing the EU’s visibility on the world
stage and making the EU a more coherent foreign policy actor. As noted above, the treaty
establishes a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to serve
essentially as the EU’s chief diplomat. This post combines into one position the former
responsibilities of the Council of Ministers’ High Representative for CFSP and the Commissioner
for External Relations, who previously managed the European Commission’s diplomatic
activities and foreign aid programs. In doing so, the High Representative position seeks to marry
the EU’s collective political influence with the Commission’s economic weight and development
tools. The Lisbon Treaty also creates a new EU diplomatic corps (the European External Action
Service) to support the High Representative.89
Does the EU Have a Defense Policy?
Since 1999, the EU has been working to develop a Common Security and Defense Policy
(CSDP), formerly known as the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP).910 CSDP seeks to
improve the EU’s ability to respond to crises, enhance European military capabilities, and give
the EU’s common foreign policy a military backbone. The EU has created three defense decisionmaking bodies, has set targets for improving defense capabilities, and has developed a rapid
reaction force and multinational “battlegroups.” Such EU forces are not a standing “EU army,”
9
For more information, see CRS Report R41959, The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy, by Derek E. Mix.
ESDP was renamed CSDP by the Lisbon Treaty.
10
Congressional Research Service
7
The European Union: Questions and Answers
but rather a catalogue of troops and assets at appropriate readiness levels that may be drawn from
existing national forces for EU operations.
CSDP operations focus largely on tasks such as peacekeeping, crisis management, and
humanitarian assistance. Many CSDP missions to date have been civilian, rather than military, in
nature, with objectives such as police and judicial training (“rule of law”) or security sector
reform. The EU is or has been engaged in CSDP missions in regions ranging from the Balkans
and the Caucasus to Africa and the Middle East.
However, improving European military capabilities has been difficult, especially given flat or
declining European defense budgets. Serious capability gaps continue to exist in strategic air- and
sealift, command and control systems, intelligence, and other force multipliers. Also, a relatively
low percentage of European forces are deployable for expeditionary operations. Some analysts
have suggested pooling assets among several member states and the development of national
niche capabilities as possible ways to help remedy European military shortfalls. In 2004, the EU
established the European Defense Agency to help coordinate defense-industrial and procurement
policy in an effort to stretch European defense funds farther.
8
9
For more information, see CRS Report R41959, The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy, by Derek E. Mix.
ESDP was renamed CSDP by the Lisbon Treaty.
Congressional Research Service
7
The European Union: Questions and Answers
What Is the Relationship of the EU to NATO?
Since its inception, the EU has asserted that CSDP is intended to allow the EU to make decisions
and conduct military operations “where NATO as a whole is not engaged,” and that CSDP is not
aimed at usurping NATO’s collective defense role. The United States has supported EU efforts to
develop CSDP provided that it remains tied to NATO, does not rival or duplicate NATO
structures or resources, and does not weaken the transatlantic alliance. Advocates of CSDP argue
that building more robust EU military capabilities will also benefit NATO given that 22 countries
belong to both NATO and the EU.1011 The Berlin Plus arrangement—which was finalized in 2003
and allows EU-led military missions access to NATO planning capabilities and common assets—
was designed to help ensure close NATO-EU links and prevent a wasteful duplication of
European defense resources. Since then, two Berlin Plus missions have been conducted in the
Balkans, and NATO and the EU have sought to coordinate their activities on the ground in
operations in Afghanistan and various hot spots in Africa.
Nevertheless, NATO-EU relations remain somewhat strained. Closer and more extensive NATOEU cooperation at the political level on a range of issues—from discussions on countering
terrorism or weapons proliferation to improving coordination of crisis management planning and
defense policies—has been stymied largely by EU tensions with Turkey (in NATO but not the
EU) and the ongoing dispute over the divided island of Cyprus (in the EU but not NATO).1112
Many analysts argue that until a political settlement is reached over Cyprus, enhanced NATO-EU
cooperation is unlikely. Others suggest that additional reasons exist for frictions in the NATO-EU
relationship, including bureaucratic rivalry and competition between the two organizations and
11
Six countries belong to the EU, but not to NATO (Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden); six other
ones currently belong to NATO but not the EU (Albania, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Turkey, and the United States).
12
Turkey continues to formally object to Cypriot participation in NATO-EU meetings on the grounds that Cyprus is
not a member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) and thus does not have a security relationship with the alliance.
The absence of Cyprus from PfP also hinders NATO and the EU from sharing sensitive intelligence information. In the
current political climate, Cyprus essentially cannot join PfP because it would require the consent of all NATO allies,
including Turkey.
Congressional Research Service
8
The European Union: Questions and Answers
varying views on both sides of the Atlantic regarding the future roles and missions of both NATO
and the EU’s CSDP. Some U.S. officials still worry that a minority of EU member states would
like to build an EU defense arm more independent from NATO in the longer term.
What Is Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)?
The JHA field seeks to foster common internal security measures while protecting the
fundamental rights of EU citizens and promoting the free movement of persons within the EU
zone. JHA encompasses police and judicial cooperation, immigration, asylum, border controls,
fighting terrorism and other cross-border crimes such as drug trafficking, and combating racism
and xenophobia. For many years, however, EU efforts to harmonize policies in the JHA field
were hampered by member states’ concerns that such measures could infringe on their legal
systems and national sovereignty. The 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the subsequent
revelation of Al Qaeda cells in Europe, and the terrorist bombings in Madrid and London in 2004
and 2005, however, helped give new momentum to many initiatives in the JHA area. Among
other measures, the EU has established a common definition of terrorism, an EU-wide arrest
warrant, and new tools to strengthen external EU border controls.
10
Six countries belong to the EU, but not to NATO (Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta, and Sweden); six other
ones currently belong to NATO but not the EU (Albania, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Turkey, and the United States).
11
Turkey continues to formally object to Cypriot participation in NATO-EU meetings on the grounds that Cyprus is
not a member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PfP) and thus does not have a security relationship with the alliance.
The absence of Cyprus from PfP also hinders NATO and the EU from sharing sensitive intelligence information. In the
current political climate, Cyprus essentially cannot join PfP because it would require the consent of all NATO allies,
including Turkey.
Congressional Research Service
8
The European Union: Questions and Answers
The EU’s Lisbon Treaty gives the European Parliament “co-decision” power over the majority of
JHA policy areas. The Treaty also makes most decisions on JHA issues in the Council of
Ministers subject to the qualified majority voting system, rather than unanimity, in a bid to
strengthen JHA further and speed EU decision-making. In practice, however, the EU will likely
still seek consensus as much as possible on sensitive JHA policies. Moreover, for some issues in
the JHA area, the EU has added an “emergency brake” that allows any member state to halt a
measure it believes could threaten its national legal system and ultimately, to opt out of it. Despite
these safeguards, the UK and Ireland negotiated the right to choose those JHA policies they want
to take part in and to opt out of all others; Denmark extended its previous JHA opt-out in some
JHA areas to all JHA issues. The Lisbon Treaty technically renames JHA as the “Area of
Freedom, Security, and Justice.”
Does the EU Have a Trade Policy and Process?
The EU has a common external trade policy, which means that trade policy is an exclusive
competence of the EU and no member state can negotiate its own international trade agreement.
The EU’s trade policy is one of its most well-developed and integrated policies. It evolved along
with the common market—which provides for the free movement of goods within the EU—to
prevent one member state from importing foreign goods at cheaper prices due to lower tariffs and
then re-exporting the items to another member with higher tariffs. The scope of the common trade
policy has been extended partially to include trade in services, the defense of intellectual property
rights, and foreign direct investment. The European Commission and the Council of Ministers
work together to set the common customs tariff, guide export policy, and decide on trade
protection or retaliation measures where necessary. EU rules allow the Council to make trade
decisions with qualified majority voting, but in practice the Council tends to employ consensus.
The European Commission negotiates trade agreements with outside countries and trading blocs
on behalf of the Union as a whole. As a result of the Lisbon Treaty, both the Council of Ministers
and the European Parliament must approve all such trade agreements before they can enter into
force. The process for negotiating and concluding a new international trade agreement begins
Congressional Research Service
9
The European Union: Questions and Answers
with discussions among all three EU institutions and a Commission impact assessment, including
a public consultation on the content and options for any future trade accord. Provided there is a
general agreement to proceed, the Commission initiates an informal scoping exercise with the
potential partner country or trade bloc on the range and extent of topics to be considered in the
negotiations. Following this dialogue, the Commission then formulates what are known as
“negotiating directives” (sometimes termed the “negotiating mandate”), which sets out the
Commission’s overall objectives for the future agreement. The “directives” are submitted to the
Council for its approval, and shared with the European Parliament.
Provided the Council approves the “negotiating directives,” the Commission then launches formal
negotiations for the new trade agreement on behalf of the EU. Within the Commission, the
department that handles EU trade policy—the Directorate General for Trade (DG Trade)—leads
the negotiations but draws on expertise from across the Commission. Typically, there are a series
of negotiation rounds; the duration of the negotiations varies but can range from two to three
years or longer. During the course of negotiations, the Commission is expected to keep both the
Council and the Parliament apprised of its progress, and the Council and the Parliament may take
the opportunity to voice their respective views and concerns. The Parliament may conduct its own
oversight hearings through its International Trade Committee (INTA). When negotiations reach
the final stage, both parties to the agreement initial the proposed accord. It is then submitted to
Congressional Research Service
9
The European Union: Questions and Answers
the Council and the Parliament for review.1213 If the Council approves the accord, it authorizes the
Commission to formally sign the agreement.
Once the new trade accord is officially signed by both parties, the Council submits a draft
decision to conclude negotiations to the Parliament for its consent. The Parliament reviews the
signed agreement both in the INTA Committee and in plenary session. Although the Parliament is
limited to voting “yes” or “no” to the new accord, it can indicate that it would not support the
agreement should it find fault with any of its provisions, and can ask the Commission to review or
address its concerns. If parts of the trade agreement fall under member state competence, all EU
countries must also ratify the agreement according to their national ratification procedures.1314 After
Parliament gives its consent and following ratification in the member states (if required), the
Council adopts the final decision to conclude the agreement. It may then be officially published
and enter into force.1415
How Do EU Countries and Citizens View the EU?
EU member states have long believed that the Union magnifies their political and economic clout
(i.e., the sum is greater than the parts). Nevertheless, tensions have always existed within the EU
between those members that seek an “ever closer union” through greater integration and those
that prefer to keep the Union on a more intergovernmental footing in order to better guard their
13
Some trade agreements submitted for Council and Parliament approval are accompanied by Commission legislative
proposals needed to implement the new accord; these legislative proposals must also be adopted by both the Council
and the Parliament.
14
With the entrance into force of the Lisbon Treaty, most policy areas usually included in trade agreements are now
considered areas of exclusive EU competence; thus, most experts judge that member state ratification may be
unnecessary, or required only for small parts of new EU trade agreements. See Stephen Woolcock, “EU Trade and
Investment Policymaking After the Lisbon Treaty,” Intereconomics, 2010.
15
For more on the EU process for concluding new trade agreements, see European Commission, “Factsheet: Trade
Negotiations Step By Step,” June 2012, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doculib/docs/2012/june/tradoc_149616.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10
The European Union: Questions and Answers
national sovereignty. As a result, some member states over the years have “opted out” of certain
aspects of integration, such as passport- and visa-free travel within the EU (UK and Ireland), the
euro (UK, Denmark, and Sweden), Justice and Home Affairs issues (UK, Ireland, and Denmark),
and the common defense policy (Denmark). Another classic divide in the EU falls along big
versus small state lines; small members are often cautious of initiatives that they fear could allow
larger countries to dominate EU decision-making.
In addition, the EU’s different histories and geography may influence certain policy preferences. The EU’s
enlargement to the east
has brought in many new members with histories of Soviet control, which
may color their views
on issues ranging from EU reform to relations with Russia or the Middle
East; at times, such
differences have caused frictions with older EU member states. Meanwhile,
southern EU countries that border the Mediterranean may have greater political and economic
interests in North Africa than EU members located farther north.
The prevailing view among European publics has likewise been historically favorable toward the
EU. Despite the EU’s recent financial troubles and a drop in public support for the EU’s single
currency, surveys indicate that the majority of EU citizens continue to consider EU membership
as good for their countries overall.1516 EU citizens also value the freedom to easily travel, work, and
live in other EU countries.
At the same time, there has always been a certain amount of “Euroskepticismeuroskepticism” among some
segments of the European public. Traditionally, such skepticism has
been driven by fears about
the loss of national sovereignty or concerns about what some view as a
“democratic deficit” in the EU—a feeling that ordinary citizens have no say over decisions taken
12
Some trade agreements submitted for Council and Parliament approval are accompanied by Commission legislative
proposals needed to implement the new accord; these legislative proposals must also be adopted by both the Council
and the Parliament.
13
With the entrance into force of the Lisbon Treaty, most policy areas usually included in trade agreements are now
considered areas of exclusive EU competence; thus, most experts judge that member state ratification may be
unnecessary, or required only for small parts of new EU trade agreements. See Stephen Woolcock, “EU Trade and
Investment Policymaking After the Lisbon Treaty,” Intereconomics, 2010.
14
For more on the EU process for concluding new trade agreements, see European Commission, “Factsheet: Trade
Negotiations Step By Step,” June 2012, http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doculib/docs/2012/june/tradoc_149616.pdf.
15
See for example, the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Transatlantic Trends 2014.
Congressional Research Service
10
The European Union: Questions and Answers
in far-away Brussels. Recently, however, the Eurozone crisis has increased the degree of Euroskepticism in some countries, and along with fears about immigration and globalization, has
contributed to the rise of anti-EU populist parties in a number of member states, including
Austria, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom
EU—a feeling that ordinary citizens have no say over decisions taken in far-away Brussels.
Recently, however, the Eurozone crisis has increased the degree of euroskepticism in some
countries and, along with fears about immigration and globalization, has contributed to the rise of
anti-EU populist parties in several member states, including Austria, Denmark, France, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Partly as a result of
increasing pressure from hardline euroskeptics, UK Prime Minister David Cameron intends to
renegotiate the UK’s relationship with the EU and to hold an “in-or-out” public referendum by
the end of 2017. With current polls indicating an almost even split among voters on staying in or
leaving the EU, a British exit from the EU (a so-called “Brexit”) could be a distinct possibility.
Does the United States Have a Formal Relationship
with the EU?
For decades, the United States and the EU (and its progenitors) have maintained diplomatic and
economic ties. Despite some frictions, the United States and the EU share a dynamic political
partnership on an increasing number of foreign policy issues, and U.S.-EU trade and investment
relations are close and extensive. The 1990 U.S.-EU Transatlantic Declaration set out principles
for greater consultation, and established regular summit and ministerial meetings. In 1995, the
New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA) and the EU-U.S. Joint Action Plan provided a framework for
promoting stability and democracy together, responding to global challenges, and expanding
world trade. The NTA also sought to strengthen individual, people-to-people ties across the
Atlantic, and launched a number of dialogues, including ones for business leaders and legislators.
16
See for example, the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Transatlantic Trends 2014.
Congressional Research Service
11
The European Union: Questions and Answers
The Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD) has been the formal mechanism for engagement
and exchange between the U.S. House of Representatives and the European Parliament since
1999, although inter-parliamentary exchanges between the two bodies date back to 1972.
Who Are U.S. Officials’ Counterparts in the EU?
U.S.-EU summits usually occur at least once a year; under the Lisbon Treaty, the U.S. President
meets with the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council.
The U.S. Secretary of State’s most frequent interlocutor in the EU context is the High
Representative for the Union’s Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The U.S. Trade
Representative’s key interlocutor is the European Commissioner for Trade, who directs the EU’s
common external trade policy. Other U.S. Cabinet-level officials interact with Commission
counterparts or member state ministers in the Council of Ministers formation as issues arise.
Many working-level relationships between U.S. and EU officials also exist. A delegation in
Washington, DC, represents the European Union in its dealings with the U.S. government, while
the U.S. Mission to the European Union represents Washington’s interests in Brussels.
How Are U.S.-EU Political Relations Doing?
The United States has long supported European integration as a way to foster democratic allies
and strong trading partners in Europe. During the Cold War, the EU project was viewed as central
to deterring the Soviet threat. Since then, the United States has backed EU efforts to extend the
political and economic benefits of membership to Central and Eastern Europe, and continues to
support the EU aspirations of Turkey and the Western Balkan states.
The United States often looks to the EU for partnership on an extensive range of common foreign
policy concerns. Over the last decade, the United States and the EU have promoted peace and
stability in the Balkans and Afghanistan, enhanced their law enforcement and counterterrorism
Congressional Research Service
11
The European Union: Questions and Answers
cooperation, and worked together to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In recent years, the two
sides have expanded cooperation on new challenges, such as cybersecurity, energy security, and
international development. Like the United States, the EU has sought to support Ukraine’s
political transition, condemned Russia’s annexation of Crimea, called for an end to Russian
support for separatists in eastern and southern Ukraine, and imposed a series of sanctions on
Russia (including two rounds, including those targeting key sectors of the Russian economy in late July and early
September 2014).
The EU has also .
The EU has been increasingly concernedalarmed about the deteriorating security situation in Syria
and Iraq,
the threat posed by the Islamic State extremist movement, and the growing number of
European European
citizens or residents fighting with Islamist groups. In light of U.S.-European visa
waiver waiver
arrangements, U.S. and EU authorities have been working together to better combat
radicalization, stem the flow of foreign fighters to the conflict zone, and track those that return.
The EU is also providing significant humanitarian assistance to Iraq and Syria, and several EU
member states are participating militarily in the U.S.-led air campaign against the Islamic State
(although they are presently limiting their actions to air strikes and air support over Iraq).
At times, however, the U.S.-EU political relationship has faced serious challenges. U.S.-EU
relations hit a historic low in 2003 over the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, which some EU members
supported and others strongly opposed. Although U.S.-EU relations have largely rebounded since
then, some tensions exist on issues ranging from climate change to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Congressional Research Service
12
The European Union: Questions and Answers
And despite close U.S.-EU cooperation on the crisis in Ukraine, differences remain over how best
to manage relations with Russia in the longer term.
Data privacy also continues to be a key U.S.-EU sticking point. Some European officials,
including many Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), have long worried that several
U.S.-EU counterterrorism information-sharing arrangements do not sufficiently protect European
citizens’ data privacy rights. European concerns have been heightened since the unauthorized
disclosures in June 2013 of U.S. National Security Agency surveillance programs, press reports
suggesting that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored EU diplomatic offices, and subsequent
allegations of other U.S. intelligence operations in Europe (including the reported past monitoring
of EU diplomatic offices and German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone). In response,
MEPs are now demanding
stronger safeguards for personal data transferred outside of the EU, and many experts contend
that the purported U.S. surveillance activities will likely make concluding future U.S.-EU
information-sharing agreements more difficult. .
Analysts also worry that such alleged U.S.
activities could negatively affect the broader U.S.-EU
relationship, including the prospects for a
proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (see below).16T-TIP).17
Meanwhile, over the last few years, some European leaders have also expressed concerns about the
U.S. “pivot” or rebalancing toward Asia. U.S. officials stress that this rebalancing will not come
at the expense of the transatlantic relationship and note that the United States hopes to engage more
more closely with Europe in the future on issues of economic and strategicstrategic and economic importance in Asia. At the
same time, some U.S. analysts assert that the EU remains preoccupied with its own economic and
political problems, and thus, is less able to be a robust partner for the United States in tackling
common international challenges.
16
James Fontanella-Khan, “MEPs Call for Clause to Limit American Internet Snooping,” Financial Times, June 19,
2013; Michael Birnbaum, “EU Fury on Allegations of U.S. Spying,” Washington Post, June 30, 2013; Alison Smale,
“Indignation Over U.S. Spying Spreads in Europe,” New York Times, October 24, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
12
The European Union: Questions and Answers
Many experts in the United States and Europe view T-TIP as a concrete reaffirmation of the
importance of close transatlantic ties, both politically and economically.
At the same time, U.S. officials and analysts worry that an EU increasingly preoccupied with its
own internal problems may be a less robust and effective partner for the United States. Some
experts contend that the breadth and scale of the multiple challenges currently facing the EU—
from the Greek crisis and the upcoming UK referendum on EU membership to migratory
pressures and the rise of anti-EU populist parties—are unprecedented, and how the EU responds
could have lasting implications for the EU’s role as an international actor and as a key U.S.
strategic and economic partner. The Obama Administration has consistently asserted its
opposition to both “Grexit” and “Brexit,” viewing such possibilities as significant threats to the
credibility of the EU, to European stability, and to a strong U.S.-EU relationship.
How Are U.S.-EU Economic Relations Doing?
The United States and the EU share the largest trade and investment relationship in the world.
Despite the 2008-2009 global economic downturn, the combined U.S. and EU economies account
for over 5046% of global gross domestic product, roughly 25% of global exports, and 30% of global
imports. According to one recent study, the transatlantic economy generates $5.5 trillion in
commercial sales a year and employs up to 15 million workers on both sides of the Atlantic. Of
particular importance isare the factfacts that U.S. and European companies are the biggest investors in
each other’s economies (total stock of two-way direct investment was $3.8 trillion at the end of
2012) andover $4 trillion in 2013)
and that the United States and Europe remain each other’s most profitable markets.17
18
17
James Fontanella-Khan, “MEPs Call for Clause to Limit American Internet Snooping,” Financial Times, June 19,
2013; Michael Birnbaum, “EU Fury on Allegations of U.S. Spying,” Washington Post, June 30, 2013; Alison Smale,
“Indignation Over U.S. Spying Spreads in Europe,” New York Times, October 24, 2013.
18
Daniel S. Hamilton and Joseph P. Quinlan, The Transatlantic Economy 2015, Center for Transatlantic Relations,
2015; CRS Report R43387, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) Negotiations, by Shayerah Ilias
Akhtar, Vivian C. Jones, and Renée Johnson, Proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP)
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13
The European Union: Questions and Answers
Although the vast majority of the U.S.-EU economic relationship is harmonious, some tensions
exist. U.S.-EU trade disputes persist over poultry, bio-engineered food products, protection of
geographical indications, and subsidies to Boeing and Airbus. Many analysts note that resolving
U.S.-EU trade disputes has become increasingly difficult, in part because both sides are of
roughly equal economic strength and neither has the ability to impose concessions on the other.
Another factor may be that many disputes involve differences in domestic values, political
priorities, and regulatory frameworks. The United States and the EU have made a number of
attempts to reduce remaining non-tariff and regulatory barriers to trade and investment. The
Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) was created at the 2007 U.S.-EU summit and tasked with
advancing the process of regulatory cooperation and trade barrier reduction.
Over the last few years, the global economic downturn and the Eurozone crisis have also
challenged the U.S.-EU relationship. Given the extensive transatlantic economic ties, U.S.
officials worried that the EU’s debt crisis could adversely affect U.S. exports to and sales of U.S.
companies in Europe, or that ripple effects could weaken U.S. financial institutions and push the
United States back into recession should any Eurozone member default. In response, the Obama
Administration urged the EU to take forceful action to address the debt crisis and advocated for
more substantial financial assistance for struggling Eurozone economies. Although U.S. concerns
about the Eurozone crisis have diminished amid U.S. economic growth and increasing market
stability in Europe, some U.S. policy makers continue to question what they view as the EU’s
emphasis on austerity measures, believing that greater efforts are needed to promote growth.
In light of the fiscal and economic difficulties on both sides of the Atlantic, in November 2011,
U.S. and EU leaders directed the TEC to establish a High Level Working Group (HLWG) on Jobs
and Growth. TheIn November 2011, U.S. and EU leaders directed the TEC to establish a High Level Working
Group (HLWG) on Jobs and Growth. In light of the fiscal and economic difficulties facing the
United States and the EU following the 2008-2009 global recession and the onset of the Eurozone
debt crisis, the HLWG was charged with considering ways to increase U.S.-EU trade and
investment to stimulate more job creation and economic growth in the United States and Europeon both sides of the Atlantic.
Based on the recommendations in the HLWG’s final report, the United States and the EU
launched negotiations in July 2013 on an ambitious, high-standard free trade agreement, known
as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Both sides. U.S. and EU policymakers hope that the TTIP
negotiations will result in an agreement that further opens markets and increases U.S. and EU
exports; strengthens rules-based investment; tackles costly non-tariff barriers; reduces regulatory
barriers; and enhances cooperation on trade issues of global concern.18
17
Daniel S. Hamilton and Joseph P. Quinlan, The Transatlantic Economy 2014: Annual Survey of Jobs, Trade, and
Investment between the United States and Europe, Center for Transatlantic Relations, 2014. Also see CRS Report
RL30608, EU-U.S. Economic Ties: Framework, Scope, and Magnitude, by William H. Cooper.
18
Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Fact Sheet: United States To Negotiate Transatlantic Trade and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13
The European Union: Questions and Answers
19
Historically, U.S.-EU cooperation has been a driving force behind efforts to liberalize world trade
and ensure the stability of international financial markets. U.S. and EU leaders sought to pursue a
coordinated response to the global financial crisis through the G-20, which brings together
industrialized and developing countries. And many view U.S.-EU cooperation as crucial to
managing emerging economies such as China, India, and Brazil in the years ahead. At the same
time, divisions exist both among EU countries and between the EU and the United States in some
policy areas. U.S.-EU disagreement over agricultural subsidies, for example, has contributed to
the stalemated Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations. In addition, U.S.-European
differences also
persist aboutregarding how to curb large global trade imbalances viewed as posing serious
risks to
economic growth and an open international trading system.
Author Contact Information
Kristin Archick
Specialist in European Affairs
karchick@crs.loc.gov, 7-2668
(...continued)
Investment Partnership with the European Union,” February 13, 2013. Also see CRS Report R43158, Proposed
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP): In Brief, by Shayerah Ilias Akhtar and Vivian C. Jones.
Congressional Research Service
14
Given the extensive U.S.-EU commercial relationship, U.S. officials have also been concerned
about recent events in Greece and their implications for the Eurozone. Throughout the crisis, the
Obama Administration has urged the EU to provide more substantial financial assistance for
struggling Eurozone economies. Some U.S. officials questioned what they viewed as the EU’s
emphasis on austerity measures, believing that greater efforts were needed to promote growth. As
a potential “Grexit” loomed in mid-2015, the Obama Administration consistently urged the EU to
find a way to keep Greece in the Eurozone, fearing that “Grexit” could introduce broad
uncertainty into the European and global economies.20
(...continued)
Negotiations, by Shayerah Ilias Akhtar and Vivian C. Jones.
19
Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Fact Sheet: United States To Negotiate Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership with the European Union,” February 13, 2013.
20
Mike Dorning, “The U.S. Suddenly Sounds an Alarm on Greece,” Bloomberg.com, May 28, 2015; Julie Hirschfeld
Davis and Binyamin Applebaum, “Obama Tries to Soften Creditors’ Stance to Salvage a Deal,” New York Times, June
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14
The European Union: Questions and Answers
Appendix. Map of the EU and Aspirant Countries
Figure A-1. Member States and Candidates
Source: Delegation of the European Union to the United States, “On the Path to EU Membership: The EU
Enlargement Process,” EU Insight, December 2010; Adapted and updated by CRS.
Note: Although the EU continues to recognize Iceland as a candidate country, accession negotiations have been
on hold since May 2013. In March 2015, Iceland requested that it should not be considered a candidate for EU
membership, but did not formally withdraw its application.
Author Contact Information
Kristin Archick
Specialist in European Affairs
karchick@crs.loc.gov, 7-2668
(...continued)
30, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
15