Tk Society Supra Purple, he Single European Act [SEA], entered into force in 1987, had two fundamental goals. According to Pinder the first of these goals was the creation of a single European market, characterized by legislative harmony, and common practices, ultimately giving rise to that level of intra-regional economic, commercial and labor as required for the establishment, and subsequent sustenance, of a single monetary regime. Within the matrix Tk Society Supra Purple of the stated goal, the SEA effectively obliterated artificial and national boundaries to the movement of goods, labor and services, across and between EU member Tk Society Supra Purple states (Pinder). It establishes the legal basis for the unrestricted movement of capitals goods and services between member states, effectively declaring the legal obliteration of intra-EU national boundaries and the replacement of the aforementioned with a single EU regional/supra-national boundary.
The first goal of the SEA, as articulated in the above was not just the establishment of a single EU market but the solidification of the region\'s singularity of market. As Westlake explains, the creation, and subsequent fortification, of the envisioned EU market was deemed impossible were the economic aspect of the integrative process not accompanied by the establishment of legal and political institutions and policies as would facilitate and legitimize the latter. Within the contextual framework of the aforementioned, the second goal of the SEA was articulated as the reformation of existent EU political institutions for the explicit purpose of maximizing efficiency of supra-national intra-EU operations, the legitimization and fortification of the sovereignty of EU law and the integration of foreign policy into EU regional treaties for the purpose of increased harmonization between political and economic institutions and operations across the member states (Westlake).
In terms of its goals, SEA has Tk Society Supra Purple been successful. In affirming the success of the SEA, Huelshoff argues that SEA must be comprehended as the first of the series of radical treaties which transformed the European Economic Community from a bloc of economically interdependent countries which sought the harmonization of economic policy in specific areas, to the European Union, a sprawling regional bloc characterized by deep economic and political integration and harmonization. The SEA succeeded in the stated primarily due to the fact that it fortified the linkage between the Union\'s economic and political institutions, thereby ensuring that the one will no function as an impediment to the others, even as it introduced the notion of the sovereignty of EU law (Huelshoff). From this perspective, therefore, the SEA can be safely judged a success insofar as established the supremacy of EU law over certain aspects of national law, especially as relates to economic and fiscal policy, and solidified the inextricable co-dependant interrelationship between EU political and economic institutions so that, instead of their conflicting with one another as had often occurred prior to the passage of the SEA, they would complement one another, with each facilitating the success of the other. In other words, the SEA established the legal framework for the evolution o the EU, not just as an economic bloc but as a deeply integrated regional and political unit.
Largely agreeing, Kreppel contends that the SEA achieved both the first and the second through the establishment of the European Parliament\'s [EP] co-equal status with the Council of Ministers, further endowing the latter with the legal authority to take the initiative in the formulation, discussion and passage of legislature. The aforementioned co-equal status, concomitant with the legislative powers and discretions awarded, functioned to establish, not just the supra-national institutional framework of the EU but the sovereignty of European Union law, ultimately allowing for harmonization throughout the EU and paving the way for expansion of membership. It did so consequent to the fact that the establishment of supra-national institutions, fortified by the sovereignty, or supremacy of EU law, enabled the relevant legislative, executive and judiciary EU bodies to establish the uniformity of law and institutions throughout the EU simply by affirming that EU law superseded national law as pertained to the movement and treatment of goods, labor, services and capital (Kreppel, 2003). In doing so, the SEA effectively fortified the EU\'s supranational institutions and established the legal parameters within which existent and future members must operate and by which they must abide.
