« The case of the Czech republic and the Slovak republic The Czech and the Slovak nations had a similar history for more than a century, and the attempt to ...» Document abstract
$9.95
11 word format
Language : english
international relations
presentation
date published
20/09/2006
review : not yet assessed
level : General public
requested 4 times
SummaryThe Czech and the Slovak nations had a similar history for more than a century, and the attempt to coexist in just one common state definitely failed in autumn 1992, when the Czech Prime Minister Václav Klaus and the leader of the main Slovak party HZDS, Vladimír Meèiar, came to the conclusion that the break-up of the integrated republic would be the best solution to the long-time internal problems. Consequently, on the 1st January 1993 two different countries emerged: the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic.
Today, both of the Republics are members both of NATO and the EU; nevertheless the evolution of the former sibling countries has been slightly different. The Czech Republic’s passage from the period of 40 years of subordination to the USSR into a functional democracy was less painful than the one Slovakia had to go through. The Czechs became members of NATO in 1999, whereas the Slovaks were not incorporated in the first wave of enhancement. Later on, when the negotiation process for the admission of the Czech and Slovak Republics to EU grew near to its end, Slovakia confronted various problems which led to discussions about its preparedness. But finally, both of the countries became members of the EU on the 1st May 2004 during the first wave of enlargement.
When taking into consideration the fact that the two countries had a common past and that they have gone through a long process of self-determination, we may suppose that the evolution of the political positioning of the two countries would also be similar. In spite of all this, we may find today two rather different systems of political culture, of party divisions and also of political struggle in the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic. Today, when talking about the further European enlargement and more about the possible admission of Turkey in the future, the two countries and their respective political parties have distinct points of view. From what is said below it may be possible to conclude that the Czech Republic had a more positive point of view about the European Union and it was more keen on entering it, whereas Slovakia stuck to its long-established good relationships with the USA and orientated its foreign politics rather to the Anglo-Saxon world. Meanwhile it is clear that after entering the EU, both of the former members of Czechoslovakia, who are now independent countries, must have expressed their opinion about the boundaries of the new allied Europe, about the further enlargement, and of course also about the question of Turkey. And surprisingly these opinions have not turned out to as different as expected in the two countries.
Consequently several questions as to why this significant division has happened may emerge: are the systems of political parties already divided by definition (because of different political background, socio-cultural beliefs or values); are there the same differences of opinion regarding the attitude to the EU and also Turkey in the Czech and in the Slovak Republic, or may we also note any internal differences between the two party systems?
Today, both of the Republics are members both of NATO and the EU; nevertheless the evolution of the former sibling countries has been slightly different. The Czech Republic’s passage from the period of 40 years of subordination to the USSR into a functional democracy was less painful than the one Slovakia had to go through. The Czechs became members of NATO in 1999, whereas the Slovaks were not incorporated in the first wave of enhancement. Later on, when the negotiation process for the admission of the Czech and Slovak Republics to EU grew near to its end, Slovakia confronted various problems which led to discussions about its preparedness. But finally, both of the countries became members of the EU on the 1st May 2004 during the first wave of enlargement.
When taking into consideration the fact that the two countries had a common past and that they have gone through a long process of self-determination, we may suppose that the evolution of the political positioning of the two countries would also be similar. In spite of all this, we may find today two rather different systems of political culture, of party divisions and also of political struggle in the Czech Republic and Slovak Republic. Today, when talking about the further European enlargement and more about the possible admission of Turkey in the future, the two countries and their respective political parties have distinct points of view. From what is said below it may be possible to conclude that the Czech Republic had a more positive point of view about the European Union and it was more keen on entering it, whereas Slovakia stuck to its long-established good relationships with the USA and orientated its foreign politics rather to the Anglo-Saxon world. Meanwhile it is clear that after entering the EU, both of the former members of Czechoslovakia, who are now independent countries, must have expressed their opinion about the boundaries of the new allied Europe, about the further enlargement, and of course also about the question of Turkey. And surprisingly these opinions have not turned out to as different as expected in the two countries.
Consequently several questions as to why this significant division has happened may emerge: are the systems of political parties already divided by definition (because of different political background, socio-cultural beliefs or values); are there the same differences of opinion regarding the attitude to the EU and also Turkey in the Czech and in the Slovak Republic, or may we also note any internal differences between the two party systems?
Table of Contents
- Political systems: parties and their main ideas.
- The case of the Czech Republic.
- The case of the Slovak Republic.
- Party position regarding the EU and its further enlargement.
- The case of the Czech Republic.
- The case of the Slovak Republic.
- Reason for the party positioning.
« The case of Poland is particularly important as it integration of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia ...» Document abstract
$9.95
15 word format
Language : english
economics
presentation
date published
21/08/2006
review : not yet assessed
level : General public
requested 14 times
SummaryTwo years ago, the European Union was joined by 10 new members whose 8 were former communist countries (plus Malta and Cyprus). The fifth enlargement has been the most ambitious in the history of the European Union. It was the largest ever in terms of number of countries (10) and population (75 million) acceding to the European Union. It was the most challenging in terms of disparity of wealth. Achieving the politic and economic reunification of Europe 15 years after the fall of the Berlin wall, it was the most symbolic since the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community which had achieved the French-German reconciliation.
Nevertheless, Eurobarometers showed this strongly symbolic enlargement meet a true enthusiasm neither in old members nor in new comers. Instead, the debate between pros and cons has been mainly situated at the economic level. Western Europeans mainly feared that the enlargement would cause industry outsourcing and Eastern workers’ immigration and thus raise unemployment in Western Europe. Many thought that the enlargement would come at a huge cost for the EU budget or would reduce the EU subsidiaries, including the CAP, they benefited from. Have these initial fears been fulfilled? On the other hand, the pros claimed that the enlargement would boost economy in both old and new members and that the European integration would accelerate the catching-up process and thus decrease the risk of outsourcing. What do the trends reveal two years later? In the context of high unemployment and lowest economic growth in Western Europe than outside, the political and symbolic dimension of the fifth enlargement was of little concern.
Although I considered this political and symbolic dimension at least as much important as the economic one, it would be impossible to analyze all the aspects of the 2004 enlargement exhaustively in just 15 pages. This paper is consequently focused only on the economic results of the enlargement (what is still too ambitious in 15 pages!). That can seem to be premature only two years after the enlargement. Of course, it is. Economic results should be studied in the long run. On the other hand, we need to analyze intermediate results and current trends not only to better the economic integration of the 2004 new members but also in the perspective of the next enlargement: the adhesion of Romania and Bulgaria in 2007 or 2008.
Has the 2004 enlargement boosted the EU-15’s and/or new member states’ economies? Were Western Europeans’ initial fears justified actually? Has the EU-15 paid the bill for Eastern and Central European economic success?
Nevertheless, Eurobarometers showed this strongly symbolic enlargement meet a true enthusiasm neither in old members nor in new comers. Instead, the debate between pros and cons has been mainly situated at the economic level. Western Europeans mainly feared that the enlargement would cause industry outsourcing and Eastern workers’ immigration and thus raise unemployment in Western Europe. Many thought that the enlargement would come at a huge cost for the EU budget or would reduce the EU subsidiaries, including the CAP, they benefited from. Have these initial fears been fulfilled? On the other hand, the pros claimed that the enlargement would boost economy in both old and new members and that the European integration would accelerate the catching-up process and thus decrease the risk of outsourcing. What do the trends reveal two years later? In the context of high unemployment and lowest economic growth in Western Europe than outside, the political and symbolic dimension of the fifth enlargement was of little concern.
Although I considered this political and symbolic dimension at least as much important as the economic one, it would be impossible to analyze all the aspects of the 2004 enlargement exhaustively in just 15 pages. This paper is consequently focused only on the economic results of the enlargement (what is still too ambitious in 15 pages!). That can seem to be premature only two years after the enlargement. Of course, it is. Economic results should be studied in the long run. On the other hand, we need to analyze intermediate results and current trends not only to better the economic integration of the 2004 new members but also in the perspective of the next enlargement: the adhesion of Romania and Bulgaria in 2007 or 2008.
Has the 2004 enlargement boosted the EU-15’s and/or new member states’ economies? Were Western Europeans’ initial fears justified actually? Has the EU-15 paid the bill for Eastern and Central European economic success?
Table of Contents
- The challenging fifth enlargement has undeniably boosted new comer's economies.
- The fifth enlargement was a challenge.
- Two years later, an economic success?.
- Has Western Europe paid the bill for eastern and central European economic growth?.
- Western fears were not justified.
- A small impact on the EU's economy and budget.
1
knowledge network
Sort by
Subject :
Type :
Extension :
Language :
Size :