The Problem With the European Union
- Is Geographical Union is a good thing? -
In the History of the World, there was never been a geographical union. A union primarily based on geography, members entered into this Union, just because they happen to be located inside this land area called Europe.
Looking at historical three types of Unions always might be harmful
Unions based on religion
Unions based on ethnicity, race
Unions based on geography?
Because Unions helpful when should be based on common interest, not on one of the above three. European Union established so that World War II does not repeat was the dominant theme. But whose idea was to include all of the European countries into this dreamland called European Union, I do not know. Consider Romania, Bulgaria, Greece; Did they ever or will ever ignite a World War II? I mean Hitler never invaded Spain, Cyprus, Ireland but Morocco, Tunisia was included inside Hitler Empire. If the aim was to create peace why not include Morocco, Tunisia into the EU? Romania, Bulgaria and most Eastern Europe to be included inside the Union purely was political. As an example, if Romania was not in EU, probably would be in some kind of Soviet Union. But this was very simplistic thinking. As you can give different level of membership. West Europe sacrificed itself for Eastern Europe by fast tracking them to full membership.
Western Europe vs Eastern Europe
The difference between eastern and western Europe is the difference between day and night. There is absolutely no shared values, human rights or standards even as of today. The only shared thing is a geography. Western Europe go as far as Hungary, after Budapest you enter Eastern Europe. One proof of that is the railways. It takes much less time of journey going from London to Budapest, where trains mostly fast, efficient and on time than to Budapest to Sofia where trains are slow, old, mostly departs not on time and will be always be late to destination, the longer the destination the later the train will arrive. The mileage between the journey is much less. From London to Budapest via Frankurt 1750km taking 19 hours vs 1150km taking 25 hours from Budapest to Sofia via Bucharest.
Ok, you give them hope, you think of them changing. Don't get me wrong. I love Bulgaria and Bulgarian, Romanian people. I have been to Bulgaria, Romania, Poland many, many times as a buy and sell guy before the EU and 20 years after the EU. There was absolutely not a single change! The city Sofia, Bucharest, Brașov is the same, same railway building, same coach station, same takeaway restaurants, same flaking paints on tramways, same buildings needing restoration, same coffee stands, same buying power whenever I go there, same human geography, well most young emigrate to to Western countries to work anyway. There is some change happening but so little so late. They could probably do this much change on their own.
20+ years on, no change of values. Romania, Bulgaria and most of East Europe did not benefit and benefiting being in this membership. Trains still run 2-6 hours late in Romania. They have not sorted out corruption. There is still bureaucracy. The standards still not there. Cleanliness not there. Safety not there. Judiciary still not yet established. Rights of individuals are not there. This is because there is no incentives to do so. You already gave them all the pie. 20+ years on, one thing is clear, EU is not improving the living standards in the Eastern Europe, will not change and won't be able to do so.
Levels of membership needed.
Every country needs incentives, encouragements to change.
There should be 3 level of EU membership at least. Countries can step down and step up in this membership. You can even introduce it today. This is incentives for countries, to make them change. For example, You say to Bulgaria, you will need to fix your education standards, improve transport within say 10 years. If at the end of 10 years, we do not see it any improvement happening, we are going to step down your country into Level 2. You may step up to Level 1, if you show signs of improvements within the say next 10 years. But after say 20 years, you still do not show signs of improvements for the things we outlined to you. You may regrettably step down your level of EU membership to Level 3. If you still show no sign of improvement say 30 years, this Level 3 membership might become permanent for you.
What the difference between Level 1, 2 and Level 3 EU membership?
On Level 1, your citizens will get all access to EU membership, it is a full membership enjoyed by most Western countries, this includes freedom to work, live. Study and open a business anywhere inside the continent. You can apply EU grants to help you build schools and hospitals and all sorts of grants to create industries in your country.
On
Level 2, it is a limited membership, freedom of movement
suspended. Grants will only approved subject to supervision, approved
case by cases only. There is advisory board assigned to your country,
to help you get back on track.
On Level 3, the least form membership, most of the benefits limited or suspended. You don't want to be on this level. As most business will be discouraged to invest in your country. As a result your trade will be expensive, will be much difficult to sell your produced certain goods to other countries as they might not fit the standards, such as human rights, workers rights, workplace safety, cleanliness...etc. Grants need special approval, things like that.
Why there is increasing number of Refuges since EU
Before EU, when you wanted to enter Germany, you needed to physically enter Germany. Now you can just enter Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, Poland, any of the Greek islands. You are inside Germany already, well almost. This actually encourages traffickers, refugees. You increased the borders of Western Europe by Eastern Europe size. No EU country has a choice to say in this. A choice of say in this matter should be given. So that traffickers will think twice. “Oh, we may not move forward from Spain as they will put a quota or has to ability to stop us.” This will definitely de-incentivise them and think twice before taking that thunderous journey.
Looking
at the chart below. We can see EU seen as an escape land and huge
jump on number of refugees into the EU from outside the EU and
increased substantially whenever there was a major conflict in the
past that was outside Europe. There was no or very little refugees
coming to Europe from outside the EU comparing before the EU was
established.
The World need engaging, cooperating, uniting and peaceful. As this is the platform where trade, science, rights, thriving at. EU distancing themselves from the rest of the World by having borders and closing up to the rest of the World not good for EU or the rest of the World. Individual members should be given, choices to express themselves, given options to solve problems on their own, let them engage to the rest of the World in their own terms, at least approve or disapprove these choices. Britain left the EU, there is increasing national protectionisms inside Western Europe primary reason for that is EU expansion into the Eastern Europe with little or no concrete plan behind it and still not to do. They needed workforce but that can be done by thinking your own citizens first. It's ok for a country to have so many migrants, whether for education or work reasons. As long as they are educating, informed and improving their life which will need to apply back in their countries. If EU does not change and not adapt to change, there will be crack somewhere. It might come from economy, or nationalism or outside force. Therefore if this continues EU might not last for long time, and they should realise that they are too not all too powerful and listen to its members better, and not to distant itself from outside the EU. Because the big picture is no the EU, or each county. The Big picture is the human beings, a World not polarising, but engaging to solve problems.
Comments