Despite its relative success in building a common market for European goods, services, and capital, the EU faces many difficult challenges in the coming years. Concerns include the growing bureaucracy necessary to govern the EU, increasing cultural and social diversity, and the accession of national interests over greater integration as most vividly demonstrated by Brexit. The EU also faces serious economic challenges. The financial melt-down in some member states and its effect across the continent is only one of many challenges confronting the EU. These concerns also raise the issue of the extent to which the interests of citizens of member states are best served by the present state of integration and possible closer integration in the future. Citizens of wealthier states have justifiable concerns about subsidizing poorer states and the fact that these wealthier states receive less money from the EU than they contribute. Smaller states worry that they will he overpowered in the EU's institutions by larger, more populous states. Less developed states may also be concerned about dominance of important areas such as media and technological innovation by more developed states such as France, Germany, and Italy. States with liberal social policies may be concerned that such policies will come under attack by states with more conservative social views. Conversely, more conservative states may be concerned that socially liberal policies will be imposed on them.

Citizens of all member states worry about the surrender of sovereignty to "Eurocrats" in Brussels and resultant loss of con-cern about local issues. In particular, the EU has been criticized in the past for a "democratic deficit?' This deficit arises from the fact that the EU's institutions (other than the Parliament) are not directly elected by European citizens. Furthermore, the operations of these institutions are so complex as to he inacces-sible to ordinary citizens. The Treaty of Lisbon was, in part, an effort to address these concerns primarily through the expan-sion of the role of the Parliament in the EU's governance struc-ture. It also provided dissatisfied member states with an escape hatch by which to leave the EU. The vote in favor of Brexit in June 2016 served as a wake-up call to factions advocating with-drawal in other member states as well as to EU advocates who have come to realize the fragility of the institutions that have been painstakingly constructed in the past seven decades. Utilitarianism focuses on whether a given action adds to the overall utility of the community. Ethical conduct is that which is likely to produce the greatest overall good not just for the decider but for all persons who will be affected by the decision. Based on the above-referenced concerns, is the cur-rent state of integration in Europe consistent with principles of utilitarianism? Is greater integration, which may occur in the future, consistent with the greatest overall good of Euro-pean citizens? Is the success of greater economic integration an adequate measure of the utilitarian nature of the EU? Who should determine the course of future integration in the EU—its citizens or its institutions? What local concerns and individual well-being of European citizens are sacrificed as a result of the current state of integration? What local con-cerns and individual well-being of European citizens will be, sacrificed as a result of greater future integration? Are such individual and national sacrifices worth the price of greater European prosperity and global influence? Why or why not?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The European Union is a trans nation union which focusses on free trade across the countries and a single currency thus forming an economic union and ... View the full answer