The Media Critique, Research Paper Example

The European Union (EU) has undergone severe debate regarding its future after the Euro Crisis destabilised the European project. Since 2012, it has become evident that a ‘euro-implosion’ will not occur, yet the situation is complex and volatile, rendering many citizens of the Member States facing difficult conditions in everyday life. Since 2010, various measures have been enacted to strengthen Europe, but the reality remains that Europeans must resign to considerable internal and external reforms and implement a strategy for the EU’s future in the long term. Perhaps most useful in this situation is a discussion between the EU countries regarding possible responses to economic, political, financial and social factors challenging the Member States. By engaging actively with policymakers and the community, the EU can return to strength at a global scale. This possibility led to a consortium of the Member States, driven by the King Baudouin Foundation and the Bertelsmann Stiftung, in seeking to engage in a cross-European public debate regarding the future of the EU and generate possible responses to the primary challenges it faces. This aim involved analysing the ‘state of the Union’, covering strategic options and various national debates with local and international players. This ‘new pact for Europe’ categorised the connected challenges facing the EU into four sections: socio-economic, political-institutional, societal and external-global. The first involved threats to social peace, high unemployment levels and pressure on the welfare state, and an increasing economic gap between countries, and structural deficits of the euro without financial and economic integration. The second covered the lack of public support for the EU, crises of leadership, and traditional theories of political governance being challenged. The societal area including a lack of knowledge regarding European integration, division between States, and misperceptions of national sovereignty. The final category mentioned the risk of marginalisation, loss of credibility at an international level, and pressure to adapt the multilateral system to the state of current international relations. Media coverage of the issues has ranged from simplistic to complex viewpoints on the way forward, using other isolated data such as tragic unemployment, or in-depth longitudinal studies over several years since the initial crisis. The proposed solutions to the issue are varied and diverse.

In Kathleen McNamara’s essay regarding the Eurocrisis, she analyses the need to integrate the EU and queries whether European leadership could in fact implement the required reforms. The key points here are the many Europeans act ‘with apparent disregard’ for the state of the EU, which at the time was facing bankruptcy and dissolution, and that similarly, the European leadership displayed lack of vision in the face of necessity. The current state of globalisation means that integration of sovereign nation-states occurs at an unprecedented level, and in the past has led to peace and welfare through Europe. However, this political innovation has fallen in the face of economic realities of single currencies and financial unions. McNamara notes that fiscal and monetary policy operate effectively together, hence the European Monetary Union existing without fiscal capacity and with a weak political identity is problematic. The economic situation in Europe is fragmented and due to separation of political, economic, and fiscal factors, there is little room to grow and reform. McNamara argues for financial regulations, and new innovations involving political integration with the centralised fiscal federalism. Her point is supported by historical evidence, when in the 1980s, the European Coal and Steel Community was established to rebuild post-war. There is no doubt that the conclusion we arrive at is that greater vision and willingness to engage in reform is required by political leaders to build EU capacity.

Other scholars have focused on particular Member States of the EU and individual contributions to preserve the euro. George Soros discusses a resolution involving Germany committing to stabilise the euro as a currency, and the similar decision required by other Member States. Soros presents a compelling argument, outlining his support of the EU as ‘the embodiment of an open society,’ which the Eurocrisis rendered obsolete. The key factors are numerous policy errors from the introduction of the euro as an incomplete currency, leading to lack of unity and understanding. Germany in particular was the largest creditor state, and its leadership has been the most active in pursuing policy changes to stabilise the euro for an indefinite period. Soros presents an ultimatum to Germany: ‘lead or leave,’ suggesting it must choose between leading as a nation, becoming a benevolent hegemon, or leaving the Euro entirely. The two opinion pieces, both relevant media articles, demonstrate how media formats engage with current topical issues yet can remain quite diverse in the message portrayed and their ideological basis.

The Summit held in June 2012 was seen as an opportunity to engage in dialogue and allow the European authorities the chance to explore alternatives. Germany was a key party in the consultation, and the program did arrive at a solution which appeared to develop beyond the sovereign debt issue. However, currently Germany is taking minimum action to preserve the Euro, and Soros suggests two objectives required to change the situation – both of which are counter to current policies. First, would be forming a level playing field between debtor and creditor countries, and second is targeting a nominal growth of five percent to allow Europe to emerge from the debt burden. These objectives can only be obtained with political union and Germany accepting a leadership role. Conversely, if Germany left, the euro would fall and the overall debt would depreciate with the currency drop, allowing debtor countries to become competitive again. The second option is unlikely to involve a voluntary exit by Germany, and Germany itself would benefit more from leading as a ‘benevolent hegemon.’ External pressure from Italy, Spain and France may be used to encourage Germany to exit and allow debtor countries to resolve the problem. However, these countries do not present a united front and public response will likely be sympathetic towards Germany. Soros states that the only solution is to make Germany aware of its misconceptions regarding its current policies, and hope it will then opt for a benevolent leadership role.

The contrasting opinions of Soros and McNamara demonstrate how complex and volatile the current state of the EU crisis is. While Soros is advocating away from union, singling out a specific Member State, McNamara is focused on complete integration. Due to globalisation, and the need for the EU to present a united front to gain international credibility, it would seem the more logical option is to consider economic and monetary union, with strengthened political support. Domestically, the debtor countries will benefit from a well-functioning union in a growth-friendly environment, allowing employment growth and public support. At a grassroots level, it is imperative to ensure there is greater public understanding of the state of the EU and the issues surrounding the Eurocrisis. A stronger community spirit must be fostered, which will give rise to institutional legitimacy, as to strengthen the euro not only the Eurozone should be considered. The core of a deeper EU must be addressed to streamline governance and better integrate the internal market. For instance, the Erasmus Programme is a widely-supported initiative aiming to build community strength between States. This type of public recognition to build foundational programs involving the public are extremely beneficial in fostering growth and positivity amidst a downturn which has seen high unemployment rates, political disruption, and governance questions.

It is worth remembering that the euro itself is a symbol of identity and unity in Europe, and was a political decision displaying support in integration. This was demonstrated by the formation of the Economic and Monetary Union, although it lacked the policy and political integration required to ensure sustainability. Various policies can be implemented, as suggested by the Stability and Growth Pact of the Member States in December 2011. This included stronger surveillance of national budgets, a fiscal compact signed by all EU Members, a system of early warnings of macroeconomic imbalances, structural reform to allow competitiveness between States, and firewalls to protect financial stability. Further, global competitiveness is required to ensure the EU can regain its position as a leading trading partner supported by a single market and currency – this trade presence is integral to economic growth.

To conclude, the Eurocrisis exposed two weaknesses in Europe’s structure. The first is that economic convergence ended between the EU countries, resulting in severe unemployment; the second is the rise of political tensions between countries and within Member States. The implications of this have been addressed in varying ways through media coverage, opinion pieces, and peer-reviewed journals analysing the way forward for Europe. They all offer a perspective on the problem, a method to resolve it, and possibilities for the future. By comparing these pieces and weighing the evidence in accordance with public support, it seems that in the case of the Eurocrisis, integration is the most beneficial way to progress. The reality is that economic and social union must be chosen, and a ‘staged process of convergence’ enacted involving structural reforms of the labour and business environment, and institutional reforms of economic governance. In addition, social and tax convergence can occur to strengthen the individual country economies. The process must be ‘centralised, harmonised or simply coordinated,’ according to a recent piece by Macron and Gabriel. This article advocates for harmonisation, taking a global perspective within which Europe can recover and restore stability. While integration is clearly the supported view, it is also suggested that France and Germany retain a responsibility to lead the reformation through unifying the solidarity and differentiation. The European news and media has portrayed Europe itself, institutions, Member States, and the euro in a variety of ways, with implications as to how it is perceived by the international arena. Various methods of coverage and media practices will influence perceptions of the Eurocrisis, and how the public understand the issues facing their countries.

Works Cited

European Commission, ‘The European Union Explained: Economic and monetary union and the euro’, October 2012, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, available online at: http://europa.eu/pol/index)en.htm (accessed 30 October 2015).

Macron, Emmanuel. & Gabriel, Sigmar. ‘Europe cannot wait any longer: France and Germany must drive ahead,’ The Guardian, 4 June 2015, accessed 2 November 2015: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/europe-france-germany-eu-eurozone-future-integrate

McNamara, Kathleen. ‘The Eurocrisis and the Uncertain Future of European Integration’, Council on Foreign Relations, September 2010, accessed 2 November 2015: http://www.cfr.org/world/eurocrisis-uncertain-future-european-integration/p22933

Soros, George. ‘The Tragedy of the European Union and How to Resolve It’, The New York Review of Books, 27 September 2012, accessed 2 November 2015: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/sep/27/tragedy-european-union-and-how-resolve-it/

‘Strategic Options for Europe’s Future: Executive Summary’, New Pact for Europe project, 2012, accessed 2 November 2015: http://www.newpactforeurope.eu/documents/1st_report_new_pact_for_europe_exec_summary.pdf