What is the difference between nafta and eu

What is more than apparent is how different the two are. Despite the aspirations of Monnet or Schuman, the most important reason for the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community ECSC was to find a means of marrying France and Germany and removing barriers to economic reconstruction.

Established at a time when recovery was complete and much of Europe was. Although aspirations to move beyond intergovernmentalism and introduce qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers were thwarted by French President Charles de Gaulle, the EU launched the Common Agricultural Policy CAP , and began developing its competition policy in the s.

After General de Gaulle resigned in , the way was open for British membership and the first enlargements, which included not only the UK but also Denmark and Ireland. Direct election to the European Parliament was also agreed upon and implemented.

At the same time, the European Court of Justice built up a body of case law that constitutionalized the treaties and established the supremacy of European over national law. In the s, the EU moved forward again, implementing qualified voting in the Council of Ministers, proceeding with the Single Market, and agreeing to contemplate both monetary and closer political union.

Well before NAFTA was contemplated or established, the EU was becoming an increasingly complex multilevel system in which decision-making competence in several policy areas had been ransferred from national capitals to Brussels.

Spared the misfortune of large scale wars, North Americans had no need to marry historic enemies to secure peace. For Canada, seeking a free trade agreement with the United States reflected the culmination of an historic debate between economic nationalists, who hoped to enhance and protect domestic industries, and continent lists, who believed that economic salvation required closer relationships with their neighbor to the south.

Historically, Liberals had been more inclined toward continentalism and the Progressive Conservatives more inclined toward economic nationalism. The election was fought on the issue. The treaty opened up trade in goods not governed by other treaties, such as automobiles, which are regulated by the Auto Pact. Although there are voices in Canada who believe that Canada should adopt the U. Instead, NAFTA has been what it was advertised to be: a free trade agreement with limited provision for the movement of people — albeit one with important consequences for the ability of federal and provincial governments to implement regulatory policies which might reflect a free flow of goods.

A quick glance at the chart should convince anyone that differences between these two regional systems more than outweigh superficial multilevel system of governance. Member-states pool their sovereignties in an increasingly wide range of policy areas and participate in complex, and in some respects similarities. The EU is a complex and, at the moment, troubled, cumbersome intergovernmental and transnational structures of governance.

There are larger and smaller member-states. However, even though some have played more preeminent roles than others, no one member-state is in a position to dominate others. Decisions are made in different ways. The normal or official legislative process is from the Commission to Council of Ministers and European Parliament. However, the European Council has assumed an increasingly important role in cutting through the most important deadlocks.

Also important are the European Court of Justice and the fabric of European law which member-state courts apply in their adjudication. Khosrow Fatemi and Dominick Salvatore Eds. All three are federations, but they are not equal in status or influence. The United States is superior to Canada and Mexico in population, the size and importance of its economy, and international status. NAFTA provides both Canada and Mexico with something that some policy-makers in each country thought vital: better, though hardly perfect, access to lucrative American markets.

These are staffed by small secretariats, and can decide by two-thirds vote. It is also possible to convene trade tribunals in the event of disputes. That said, NAFTA limits the ability of local, provincial or state, and federal governments in each country to regulate economic activity.

This occurs not through direct prescriptions or prohibitions but because plaintiffs — typically business firms — in each country can ask courts in other countries to strike down regulations which may be deemed to interfere with trade or limit commercial activity. A member of the audience asked the speaker if he consideredwhether there was any chance for the NAFTA to be like the European Community; the answerwas negative.

Time has proven that the respectable scholar was wrong; however, we cannot blame him forthinking like that. Moreover, there are several analytical studies of a comparative nature, with the EUas the standard of comparison, that raise doubt over the idea of a North American Community. Ifwe agree that the NAFTA is a region in the making and its objectives tend to be overtaken by thedynamics of the region, we are in business.

North America has become a real region for security reasons, for economic advantages and forpolitical interests. The creation of the EU began right after World War 2 came to an end. This was implemented in the year Initially, at first, when it was formed, only six members were a part of this treaty. Later on, there was an increase in the number of countries as the years came by, forming an alliance of about 28 countries in total today. The NAFTA contained provisions such as the availability of flexible trade relationship among the three countries, which could be done only by eliminating the economic barriers, promoting and protecting the property rights intellectually and government procurement by rules of origin between the three countries.

This treaty was finally created in the year