IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/eurrev/v22y2014i02p274-282_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Sense and Nonsense of the EU Integration Debate

Author

Listed:
  • Scholten, Miroslava
  • Scholten, Daniel

Abstract

The current financial crisis in the Eurozone has put the debate on EU integration back on the table. Yet, how does the debate on EU integration, particularly the arguments and ideals used in it, actually influence the process of EU integration? This article wishes to provide some food for thought by arguing the debate’s irrelevance in furthering or hindering the EU integration process. It does so by discussing the role of the debate’s arguments in shaping EU integration and by comparing the EU debate with the one had by the founding fathers of the US. The article shows the debate is beside the point largely because most steps in EU integration are driven by circumstances, events, or national interests, that even when one argument seems decisive it is likely to be elevated over others by circumstances, and that none of the debate’s arguments hold an intrinsic value over others.

Suggested Citation

  • Scholten, Miroslava & Scholten, Daniel, 2014. "The Sense and Nonsense of the EU Integration Debate," European Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 274-282, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:eurrev:v:22:y:2014:i:02:p:274-282_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1062798714000106/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:eurrev:v:22:y:2014:i:02:p:274-282_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/erw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.