Analysing Britains Role In The European Union Politics Essay

Analysing Britains Role In The European Union Politics Essay It was only on January 1, 1973 that Britain became an official member of the European Union. Ultimately, what was seen through this was twenty-two years of little participation from Britain in the affairs of Europe. Twenty-two years before its entrance, Britain was given the opportunity in 1950 to participate in the negotiations that paved the path for the emergence of the European Coal and Steel Community; nevertheless, when an invitation was extended to the Labour Government of the time, Prime Minister Clement Attlee declined to participate in these discussions. Later, when the ECSC and its six member-states passed consensus to expand the ECSC, Britain was invited to the negotiations but Prime Minister Anthony Eden ultimately withdrew his Conservative party from the discussions. By 1974, a year after its official membership, Britain had become regarded as an awkward partner to the European Union, a standing that continues to be seen between Britain and the EU as a result of the pol icies that Britains respective leaders have taken towards the European Union. Conservative Government Strained Relations of 1973 1974 Edward Heath, who took the reins of Britain in 1970, was at the helm of building a stronger relationship with the European Union. His pro-European attitude led to the ultimate admittance of Britain into the EU. Nevertheless, admission came at a time when Britain and the rest of Europe began to see a strain to their economies. The success that the EEC had seen prior to Britains admission was not shared; instead, Britain entered during a period of recession which led its membership to not have positive connotations with Britons. While Edward Heath and Georges Pompidou had started to build a close relationship after Britains entrance, Britains attempt at increasing the quality and size EECs institutions and proposing the concentration of its activities in Brussels angered the Commission because, through it, Britain continued to imply that the Commission was ineffective. When it came to the Economic and Monetary Union, Britain once again earned a reputation of being an awkward partner in the EU. Britain disappointed its EU partners when it declared that it would not enter the sterling into the joint float unless certain agreements were reached by the EEC to underwrite the sterlings value. While the rest of the member-states had agreed to place the bank in Luxemburg, Heath insulted the EU by pressing for centralization of the European reserve bank to be located in Brussels, which fared negatively for him as a result of member-states believing that Britain was meddling in issues that they have no involvement in. As Britain continued to slowly integrate into the EU, the British government continued to strain its relationship with the other EEC members. Instead of acting in a diplomatic manner, British officials openly voiced their opinions of the incompetence seen within the EEC, which often angered the original six. Heaths push for what he believed were necessary changes to the external energy policy of the EU was often seen as conflicting with the positions of the other member states; France had continued to insist that an internal policy would need to be first established before the EU could even consider the feasibility of an external policy. The British, on the other hand, did not believe that internal energy policy was as crucial as the EUs external policy on the matter. Unfortunately, the start of the Arab-Israeli war brought about oil shortages that brought many EU nations down to their knees; the Dutch and the Germans, who at first supported Britains argument in preventing an interna l policy, began suffering heavily from the shortages in oil and shortly after began supporting the creation of an internal European oil/energy policy. In a show of their awkward partnership, Britain decided that not back down from their original position of rejecting an internal energy policy for the EU, which led the continuing of European oil shortages. Britain focused on its own domestic interests, feared that the establishment of internal energy policy would give the EU an opportunity of obtaining access to Britains oil reserves in the North Sea. As a result, Heath would not concede to EU pressure and refused to consolidate and distribute energy resources equally amongst EU member-states. What started as a constructive and optimistic entry into the EU ended with conflict and stress between Britain and the EU member-states. While Heath was genuinely interested in strengthening the European Union, his actions were seen as Britain being uncooperative as a result of its desire to benefit from the EU for the sake of its own national interests. Regrettably, the Labour party that took office in 1974 would continue Britains role as an awkward partner. Labour Government of 1974-1979 The Labour party that succeeded Heaths government in 1974 began to take a backseat in international politics as it attempted to repair the country. Domestically, Britain had become plagued with economic and political problems caused by both the oil crisis and by Heaths inability to control British trade unions (Guido, 1984). As a result of the oil crisis, inflation hit British society hard and was predicted to remain on the rise, while the balance of payments saw a deficit in the billions by the end of 1974. While Prime Minister Harold Wilson had to work with hung Parliament, he also found himself, at the same time, being forced to deal with the problems of his divided country. Britains membership in the EU continued to be an issue to many Britons, which allowed Wilson to unite Britain in a campaign against the European Union (Bilski, 1977). Wilson, in seeing the negative opinion Britons had of the EU, decided to become a protector of Britains national interests by pressing for British membership in the EU to be renegotiated with acceptable terms. What began as peaceful negotiations that aimed to adapt and reshape the terms of Britains membership in the EU soon turned harsh by April 1974; at the renegotiations held in April, Britain demanded to have the right to withdraw itself from the EU if any future negotiation led to terms that Britain would not agree to (Ernst, 1974). While the Commission was disappointed with Britains tone, it felt obligated to sit down with Britain to renegotiate its terms of membership. After Wilson strongly campaigned for his government against the EU on CAP; cash rebates; and Britains membership terms, domestic polls showed that a higher percent of Britons supported EU membership. While the referendum produced high support for membership from the public, Wilson continued to see hostility towards the EU from within his own party. As such, Britain found itself again as an awkward partner to the EU based on the negotiations of pollution control and Britains claims from the ERDF. When the EU proposed changes to emission limits, Britain quickly rejected the proposal and claimed that the standards were unsuitable for Britain. While the EU suspected that Britain was influenced by its chemical industry, West Germany argued that the lax standards that British chemical plants had gained by not accepting the emission limits would give British companies a price advantage over European competitors. In continuing the souring of its relationship with the EU, Britain was accused of making claims from the ERDF for projects that were supposed to be funded by British funds. The ERDF was established with the mindset that only projects that were not funded through national money could be claimed. Instead, Britain had decided to put in only claims that would allow it to recover the money it had itself put into the ERDF fund. To the EU, this attempt at recovering its own funds showcased Britains inability to have a community-based mentality. Finally, when it came time to look into energy policy again, Britain once again took the steps to make it an awkward partner with the EU. Britain continued to object the proposal of placing controls on the production and distribution of oil energy even when the EU attempted to accommodate each and every demand by the British government. Nevertheless, Britain continued to argue that it needed more time to look into the effects of such proposal, which angered all the member-states who wanted to obtain an accord on an outline of the policy. In discussing the upcoming conference of 1975, Britain showed again showed its disinterest in cooperating with the EU when it announced that it would not agree to be represented by a single EC seat at the Paris conference. Annoyed, Germany sent out a letter to the member-states that expressed anger at the lack of community within the EU as a result of Britains position on the seat allocation. Germany argued that with its weak economy, Britain was in no position to negotiate on these issues without any consequences (Davidson, 1975). Members-states continued to argue that the negative attitude of the British government hindered their ability to develop a common policy. While the Wilson administration tarnished Britains reputation within the EU, the emergence of James Callaghan as the next Prime Minister did little to make the EU hopeful of a better relationship with Britain. While Callaghan took a peaceful approach towards the EU early on, domestic hostility towards Britains membership in the EU continued to remain high; which led Callaghan to remain cautious in his relationship with the EU. The letter from Callaghan to Labour Secretary Ron Hayward, while positive at first, continued Britain on its negative relations with the EU. Callaghan claimed that the EU was not working in the interests of Britain and that the only reason for not withdrawing from the EU was that it would tarnish Britains relations with the United States. Callaghans statement in regards to the US angered member-states who complained that Britain was providing more attention to the United States than to its partners in the EU. A prominent theme in Callaghans government, US-Briti sh relations did little to lift Britains reputation within the EU, and its relations would continue to spiral downward with the rise of the Thatcher government. Rise of Thatcher: 1979 to 1990 Elected in 1979, the Thatcher government that rose to power following Callaghans Labour government became quickly aligned to the U.S. government, much to the anger of Britains EU partners who were against influence stemming from the United States. Nevertheless, by 1981, the European Union was suffering an economic downturn and was facing bankruptcy. In order to counter this problem, the EU proposed increasing the VAT ceiling by an additional one percent, which Britain strongly refused to accept. Relations between Britain and the EU continued to sour during this financial crisis because Britain continued to hold up any compromises and refused to agree on any proposals set forth by the EU. As the EU member-states grew irritated with Britains reservations on agreeing to new agricultural prices, member-states decided to call for a majority vote on the price levels. In retaliation, Britain protested this action, stating that it breached Britains right to utilize a veto on the topic. Never theless, already weary with Britains inability to compromise, member-states rejected Britains complaint because they believed that agricultural price levels were not of national interest for Britain. As a result of Britains lack of cooperation, France proposed removing Britain as a member of the EU and making it a nation with special status in the EU (Hansard, 1982). When the EU finally ran out of money in 1984, it proposed adding an additional budget of two billion to aid them for the rest of the year. As usual, Britain became an awkward partner by announcing that it would reject a supplementary budget, asserting that the EU should learn how to operate with the budget it had been already been given. Hearing this, member-states grew weary with the already unpopular British government and labelled Thatcher as being counter-productive to the success of the Union (The Economist, 1984). Member-states were disappointed with Britains primary concern over the budget rather than on the wellbeing of the EU partnership. Already blacklisted as a hardliner, Thatchers strong cooperation and identification with the U.S. did little to help her image with the EU. The Reagan Administration, on a hunt for terrorists in Syria and Libya, was set on placing restrictions on these two countries and urged Britain to join its cause. Britains involvement in urging EU sanctions against Syria left many EU member-states troubled by Britains strong partnership with the United States. While the early 1980s saw a more peaceful and relaxed time for the interactions between Britain and the EU, Britain did appear again as an awkward partner by the end of the 1980s. When proposals for a single European currency were suggested at the 1988 meeting in Hanover, Thatcher quickly responded that she would not take any steps of integrating the sterling pound into the EMS. Additionally, Thatcher rejected any ideas of creating a European central bank, stating that a central bank would require a central government to succeed, to which she argued that her government was not ready to accept a centralized European government. Nevertheless, frustrated by Britain, the EU decided to proceed without the British and establish a committee to look into the possible ways to strengthen the EMS (Hansard, 1988). Concerned at the route that the EU began taking, Thatcher publically denounced the committee and proclaimed that Britain would never agree to the establishment of a European Central Ba nk, a statement which continued to strain relations between Britain and the EU (Ibid, 1988). When discussing a European technological cooperation budget in 1986, Britain once again was labelled as the EUs awkward partner in its refusal to accept the amount of funding proposed by the other member-states. The EU believed that it would be giving Britain more value for its investment in research and development; nevertheless, Britain would not budge from its original budget proposal (Peel, 1987). Once Britain backed down and agreed to fund the program in 1987, member-states had become frustrated with the termination of the program as a result of lack of funding from the British (Sharp, 1987). When the EU expressed interest in reviving the plans for the European Defence Community in 1987, Thatcher warned against the idea in fear that the establishment of such defence policy would counter the links that the EU and Britain had established with the United States. These strong views from Thatcher made Britain seem to be uncooperative with the goals set forth by the EU. While some member-states were also unwilling to establish an EDC, the tone that Thatcher used which made her sound more concerned with Britains relationship with the United States made Britain an awkward partner for the EU. Her focus on preserving ties with the United States rather than worrying about European interests greatly hindered her ability to work with her EU partners. At home, Margaret Thatcher began facing attacks from the Labour party, who accused her of attempting to slow the development of the European Union (Independent, 1989). They argued that the EU would continue its development with or without Britain and that it would be dangerous for Britain to be left as a second-class member (Independent, 1989). The public was further enraged by Thatchers tone against the EU; numbers in the country showed that the public had become more pro-Europe since the referendum in 1975 (Independent, 1989). As a result, Thatcher saw herself being forced to become much more neutral and conciliatory towards the EU. While members of her cabinet continued to attack the EU on monetary policy, Thatcher decided to accept only the first condition of the Delors proposal for the creation of a monetary union. Thus, throughout 1989 and 1990, the proposal for a monetary union became a primary theme for both the EU and Britain. Due to the fact that Thatcher personally opposed Britains membership in the ERM, government officials quickly grew angry with her stance and many subsequently resigned from their posts. Officials argued that Thatchers views were not consistent with the views of the British government and that by remaining out of the ERM, Britain would be unable to take part in the discussions surrounding a monetary union. With a government pressing for entry into the ERM, Thatcher eventually agreed that Britain would become a member of the ERM on October 5, 1990 (Elliott, 2005). While Thatcher agreed to enter the ERM, her partnership with the EU once again became awkward when she refused to allow the EU to move to the second stage of the Delors report. Much to the anger of Parliament and her cabinet, Thatcher argued that national interests could not allow her to hand over the sterling to the EU (Hansard, 1990). As a result of her stubbornness, the EU saw Britain as an awkward partner and Thatcher lost her Deputy PM, who resigned in frustration. Her Deputy PM argued that the uncooperative tone that Thatcher had taken with the EU would make it more difficult for Britain to hold influence over the future of the monetary union. Additionally, he blamed Thatcher for the inflation that Britain was suffering as a result of her disinterest in joining the ERM (Independent, 1990). The resignation of Geoffrey Howe slowly gave way to the end of Thatchers reign as Prime Minister and rise to the government of John Major in November 1990, which hoped to build better relatio ns with the European Union. Conservative Government of 1990 to 1997 While the Major administration that took over tried to mend relations between Britain and the EU, it constantly found itself returning towards the hostile relationship found under the reign of Thatcher. In 1991, President Delors provided Britain an opportunity to accept an opt-out clause in regards to accepting a single currency. While Thatcher still argued against the concept of accepting any compromise on monetary union, Major felt that an opt-out clause in the Maastricht Treaty would help Britain overcome its hesitation on the topic. Nevertheless, because only Britain was given this opt-out opportunity, it was again placed as an awkward partner as a result of its unwillingness to completely cooperate with the union. By 1992, Britain had assumed the EU Presidency and now found itself strongly on the defence of the Maastricht Treaty. Major believed that standing in complete support of ratification of the Treaty would show the EU that Britain was dedicated to its role within the EU. At the same time, he believed that the treaty would hinder attempts at centralizing the EU. Nonetheless, Delors interpretation of the Maastricht Treaty as an opportunity for the EU to become a federalist state upset both Britain and many of the EU member-states. As a result, Denmarks referendum led to a defeat of the treaty, which shocked many nations, including Britain. Consequently, Major now found himself advocating the ratification of a treaty that every other member-state had wanted to renegotiate. Thatcher condemned Majors support for the Maastricht Treaty and called for a British referendum on the treaty. With trouble at home, Major faced anger and criticism from member-states who claimed that Britain continued t o remain focused on her self-interests and ignored the problems facing the EU as a whole. Fear that France would vote against the Treaty gave way to a loss of confidence in the ERM, which led to the pound sterling being forced out of the ERM as a result of Britain being able to maintain the sterling above its set lower limit (Hansard, 1992). This latest development in the problems during the British presidency only served to fuel Britains role as the EUs awkward partner. As a result of resentment towards the EU within Britain, Major struggled to maintain positive relations with the EU; the nominations for the President of the Commission in June 1994 showcased Britains struggle and awkwardness as a partner. At the meeting, Major vetoed the appointment of Jean-Luc Dehaene, announcing that he would never agree to his nomination (Barber, 1994). EU member-states grew angry by Britains stance, claiming that Britain was driven by its domestic interests rather than its interests with the EU. Britain became the awkward partner when the Council was forced to agree on the nomination of Prime Minister Jacques Santer of Luxemburg instead of their original nomination. Majors actions against Germanys nomination of Dehaene quickly deteriorated Britains relationship with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. What started as a desire for complete EU cooperation ended with Britain having a tarnished reputation amongst its EU partners. Majors actions against the EU, through his threats, vetoes, stances and public speeches, led to his government being isolated from the politics of the EU. While a large portion of the problems with the EU emerged as a result of influence stemming from domestic policy at home, Majors angry tone towards the EU over the election of a new commission President, and over the mad cow crisis of 1996 only served to further distance Britain from the EU. Britains Present Day Status Though this report only discusses the governments of Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Thatcher, and Major, it is important to note that despite the fact that relations have somewhat improved between Britain and the EU, there still remains tension between the two partners to make Britain continue its path as an awkward partner. While the Blair and Brown administrations have improved Britains relationship with the EU, there still exists an awkward relationship between the two partners. Though political parties have change, Britain continues to maintain its position as the EUs awkward partner as a result of the domestic fear in accepting the EUs role and influence in British politics; the strong sense of maintaining national pride and through the rejection of European federalism; and finally, as a result of the continued focus on maintaining a strong relationship with the United States. Nevertheless, while domestic uncertainty towards European Union has remained prevalent in Britain, one can say that the EU has indeed had an impact on British politics and Britains foreign policy. Once known for its dominant decision-making role in international affairs and in its own domestic policies, Britain has shifted its view of global politics to that where it has realized that its relationship with the United States and the EU are equally important for the success of the nation. Thus, while Britain still remains an awkward partner to the EU, the steps and actions that Britain has taken in the two most recent administrations and with any luck in the upcoming administration can be claimed as an attempt by the British nation to take slow and calculated steps towards ultimately embracing its membership within the European Union.

The Epic of Gilgamesh :: essays research papers

Before we read 'The Epic of Gilgamesh' we were learning about ancient civilizations. This book gives us a story to understand how people acted, who they looked up to, & what they believed in. 'The Epic of Gilgamesh' may not be an important text to read, but it's better then taking notes. By reading the story & doing a BBQ everyday is like the same thing. So 'The Epic of Gilgamesh' should be read in the ninth grade global history, since it fits so well with the curriculum. No matter what time period it is just about all civilizations have gender roles. In ancient Sumer most of women in the story are portrayed differently. One of them was a slut (Harlot). Another was completely crazy who hated rejection (Ishtar). After Gilgamesh washed & changed his clothes Ishtar fell in love with him. So Ishtar asked Gilgamesh to marry her. When she was rejected she was furious. Ishtar went to her father Anu & told him what happened. ?My father give me the bull of heaven to destroy Gilgamesh? this quote was found on page 87. Every civilization, country, & state needs a leader if it hopes to be successful. Leaders need to take charge & keep things in order, but a good leader would also be open to change. At the beginning of the story Gilgamesh is hated by all of the people of Uruk. They thought that Gilgamesh was arrogant & he was unfair. Everything changed when Gilgamesh met Enkidu. They started out as friends but when Nisum adopted Enkidu as a son, Gilgamesh & Enkidu got even closer. When Enkidu died Gilgamesh was devastated so he had a statue made for his brother.?Then Gilgamesh issued a proclamation through the land, he summoned them all, the coppersmiths, & the goldsmiths, the stone-workers,& commanded them , ?Make a statue of my friend this quote was found on page 96. This was reckless of Gilgamesh but instead of staying locked up in his room he requested to have something made in his friend?s honor. Gilgamesh showed excellent leadership qualities by taking charge of the situation. Through out this book when ever the characters are faced with a problem they turn to religion. The religion of the story is polytheism which is the belief of many gods.

Kashmir Problem

I think that if war is seen as real possibility, all efforts should be on its prevention as war brings killing of innocent people, hunger and devastations. The region of Kashmir would hardly be able to restore uniqueness of the legendary beautiful mountainous area. Moreover, 7 million of people are endangered to be killed. But for what?This question is a matter of interest for many politicians, historians and economists as many countries are involved in the conflict – India, Pakistan are the primary participants of the conflict, and the US has its own position towards the problem. Pakistan and India are known to have dispute over Kashmir as they are willing to divide the region. â€Å"Line of Control† is introduced as a violated truce.The problem is that India views Kashmir region as a part of its nation and it claims that Pakistan has occupied illegally portion of the region. Therefore, Indian government is going to prevent unification between Kashmir and Pakistan. In its turn, Pakistan residents are allowed to choose freely whether they want to live in Kashmir or in Jammu. It goes without saying that India rejects such plebiscite. In my opinion, the most dangerous thing is that both countries are nuclear power. It means that in war they may refer to nuclear weapon which can destroy not only Pakistan or India, but also all neighboring states.I think that everything should be done to solve the conflict peacefully to avoid killing. The article mentions that India had invented more than 300 kg of weapons-grade petroleum in 1995, and it is hard to image what the consequences of such attack may be. Additionally, both countries are hardly equipped with ballistic missiles and fighter jets which could be armed with nuclear weapons.The conflict is worse by the fact that India suffers from terrorist attacks and may refer to military response, whereas Pakistan views India as aggressor which is willing to take full control of Kashmir threatening in such a wa y Pakistan nation. It is rather hard to decide whether India or Pakistan can be considered right. The situation is two-fold, but it is necessary to press Pakistan to give up terrorism as it encourages India to attack.ReferencesKashmir. New York Post On-line. Retrieved March 28, 2008, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/kashmir/front.html

Effects of Fast Food on American Economy - 1461 Words

Effects of Fast Food on the American Economy How does fast food affect America’s economy? Does fast food affects Americans economy in the bad way or good way? Some people say that fast foods are ruining Americans economy. They want to reduce effects of the fast food industry in America. However, the advocates do not agree because they think that fast foods are giving a major boost to the economy. They give out a few examples about the advantage of fast food to the economy such as proving jobs or helping America’s agriculture by purchasing agriculture products. In my point of view, the fast foods are affecting American economy negatively, which can be seen through the average wages of Americans, the cost of medical care for fast food†¦show more content†¦The more time people spend to cure their illness the more time of work they lose. In the modern economy, time is money, so when people lose their time they also lose money. Generally, the economy will be â€Å"cost billions of dollars† (Colliver) be cause people are losing their time and money to cure their illnesses which come from their bad habit of consuming fast foods. Fast food industry not only causes illness for people but also create problems to American agriculture since â€Å"The fast food chains now stand atop a huge food-industrial complex that has gained control of American agriculture.† (Schlosser). The fast foods companies need to purchase a vast of the agriculture products such as potatoes or cattle, and so they create corporate farms to provide products to their demands. Famer and cattle ranchers are being replaced by giant agribusiness companies which take over their lands. The independent famers are vanishing, and the gap between a small amount of wealthy elites and the large numbers of the working poor is getting bigger. When the fast foods companies control a vast of agriculture products, they also control prices of those products, which has driven down the prices and benefits that are offered to American farmers. According to Eric Scholosser, Nation Magazine Award winner, â€Å"In 1980, about thirty-seven cents of every c onsumer dollar spent on food went to the farmer. Today, only twenty-three cents goes to the farmer -Show MoreRelatedFast Food Restaurants: A Detriment to the Health of Americans833 Words   |  4 PagesOne out of every three Americans is obese while the majority of these obese people in the have eaten regularly at fast food restaurants. As the obesity rate increases, the number of fast food restaurants goes up as well. Although it is not certain, many believe that obesity in the United States is correlated to eating fast food. Since the United States has the highest obesity rate out of any country, it is important for Americans to monitor the fast food industry that may be causing obesity. WithRead MoreObesity And Fast Food1444 Words   |  6 Pagesaddition, eating many unhealthy food and lacking exercises lead to dangerous chronic illnesses which then leads to premature death. Lifestyle choices contribute to obesity, in general, and can have adverse health outcomes like chronic i llnesses and death. Surprisingly, countless fast food restaurants provide cheap, fast, and delicious fast foods which Americans are yearning for and they, unfortunately, have commenced to abandon healthy food. In the article â€Å"The Fast Food Trap†, the author Gary RuskinRead MoreTastefully Taking Over China1341 Words   |  6 Pagesa multimillion dollar fast food company I would expand my business and open a resturant in China. They have a large economy with a large population and a growing middle class. Even though there are cultural differences, different tax codes and political and economic differences it is still one of the best countries to start a business because it has one of the strongest economies in the world. With China ranked second to the United States as the world’s strongest economies I see it fit to take advantageRead MoreCause And Effect Of Obesity1477 Words   |  6 Pages Cause and effect essay Ahmad Elham ENG 111/FH21 Sunithi Gnanadoss May 2, 2017 After World War II, when the baby Boomer generation emerged, USA economy increased and people started utilizing fast food without a diet plan, without caring about nutrition in their food and the calories they were consuming caused obesity. At the same time, transportation and technology revolutions which meant to bring ease in nation’s lives, brought laziness and obesity. Ultimately, many others callRead MoreEffect Of Raising Minimum Wage1215 Words   |  5 PagesEffects of Raising Minimum Wage The minimum wage in this country has been a controversial issue. Many people believe it will help reduce poverty and boost the economy. However, they are not looking at the downfalls this will bring to our country. This could make the unemployment population rise, it will raise prices of other things, and would have little effect on reducing poverty. Raising the minimum wage would have a negative influence on our country. This movement throughout our countryRead MoreEating Food Policy Regulations And Food Choices1256 Words   |  6 Pagesof causing food shortage for other human beings, destroying the natural environment, inhuman treatment of animals in pursuit of food options, exploitative labour practices, breaking the food policy regulations and most important eating unhealthy. Eating ethically refers to the consequences that arise from the food choices human beings make for themselves and the effects to the respective concerns. The American population is very large.an attempt to feed such a ;arge population is a food choice thatRead MoreEffect Of Raising Minimum Wage1215 Words   |  5 PagesEffects of Raising Minimum Wage The minimum wage in this country has been a controversial issue. Many people believe it will help reduce poverty and boost the economy. However, they are not looking at the downfalls this will bring to our country. This could make the unemployment population rise, it will raise prices of other things, and would have little effect on reducing poverty. Raising the minimum wage would have a negative influence on our country. This movement throughout our country is beingRead MoreThe American Diet973 Words   |  4 Pagesremains constant; americans have an unfulfilling diet overall. In other countries the have their diet scheduled for three structured meals for each day, whereas americans eat whenever their minds tell them that they are hungry. The problem with the american way is when americans eat, they eat food that is filling to the brain but not to the stomach. Americans are always on the run, therefore there is not sufficient time to prepare a structured meals; instead americans rely on fast food. This method ofRead MoreEssay about Fast Food Globalization1351 Words   |  6 PagesFast Food Globalization Some people get confused when they hear the word, globalization. What is it? Globalization is a modern term used to describe the changes in societies and the world economy that result from dramatically increased international trade and cultural exchange. That means the world is slowly becoming one by producing goods and services in one part of the world, only to share it on an international level. This is a deeply controversial issue, however. Proponents of globalizationRead MoreFast Food Industry Essay1456 Words   |  6 PagesThe fast food industry has come a long way from its humble beginnings in the suburbs of Southern California. The industry has grown from being a commodity that worked to satisfy its customers efficiently to being filled with corporations that are looking to make the largest profits possible. This has led it to be very involved in political matters and along with the meat industry, it has a very strong hold over food politics. The effects of this on the Amer ican society have become noticeable, with