The EU and Sweden in 650 words

The EU and Sweden

After World War 2, Europe’s infrastructure and political situation had been devastated, and change was vital. The continued tension between the Soviet Union and Western Europe, and the requirement to a closer relationship between nations and prevention of another war, resulted in the Schumann Doctrine, which created a single market for coal and steel, and intercepted free production and selling of weapons, and thus also violent conflicts between countries. This Union was called the EEC and was proclaimed through the treaty of Rome. The treaty that made the EU official was the Maastricht treaty, accepted in 1992, and the latest is the Treaty of Lisbon, which among other things clarifies which powers belong to the EU and which powers belong to the members.

The way that the EU is organized is that the European Comission writes laws and runs the Union comparable to a government, the European Parliament can approve, reject or change proposed laws and is made up by members elected in their home countries, the European council summit of the Heads of Government, the council of the European Union acts with the Parliament as a legislator and Court of Justice ensures legal interpretation and decide legal disputes. 

Desicions made by the EU Parliament is above Swedish law and if they collide, the EU law is prioritized. The single market means that there is a free movement of capital, goods, services and labours. These four free concepts can also be referred to as “The Four Freedoms”.

Many European Countries also share a common currency, the euro, to enhance the single market, although Sweden is not a part of this system. 

Today, the EU is facing several challenges. A massive influx of immigrants will lead to higher pressure on sources and eventually a short-term unstable economy and a rise in taxes. In the long run, however, the new human resources could be vital as workforce if the economy expands, due to the growing service industry. 

Furthermore, as religious extremist groups develop, Europe as a union has been badly affected. Terrorist attacks are becoming more frequent and severe and citizens and infrastructure has been negatively impacted by this. Security force such as the police and military are constrained to strengthen their organizations and the continent is once again facing violent conflicts, recognizable from the early 1940’s. These political statements have also affected citizens and the social conditions through fear for another attack and increased stereotyping and prejudice towards certain minorities among the population, although the political climate between EU countries remain relatively peaceful.

In my, the author’s, opinion, Sweden being a member of the EU is not beneficial. The country’s citizens have less and less to say about their national conditions, since EU laws are above any decisions made by the Swedish parliament. In addition to this, Sweden is negatively affected when another member of the union suffers from for example a declining economy, in which situation our nation, along with others, have to take part of our resources and donate, thus having impacts on Sweden when another country faces complications. Also, with Sweden having a smaller population, we have less influence on the des idioms made in the EU parliament. This means that the inhabitants of Sweden have less to say about their own country and political situation. In conclusion, Sweden give more than we receive in order to remain a member of the European Union.

Of course a closer relationships between countries have it’s benefits, especially considering trade and peace within the union, but as our world evolve this could have devastating effects in the future. As extremist groups are becoming more common, many limit the freedom connected to crossing the border, whereas EU has expanded it. By expanding, the control we have over who is in a country at what time is restricted and thus, terroristic events may be more frequent and committers not as easily traced.

&...