How The Union Is S fl ing Economic Development And Why Europe Will Never Flourish Under The Eu

How the Union is stifling economic development and why Europe will never flourish under the EU

With the UK’s impending exit from the European Union, there is more focus than ever on the state in which the current 28-member organisa on exists and what really are the benefi ts and drawback of being involved has, especially with other countries considering their future status. The EU’s main roots of concep on have always been based around the idea of providing more accessible free trade and a customs agreement focusing on improving the economic condi ons. However over me this ideal has changed into a reduc onist system where a single state mentality exists, with a governing bureaucracy that no longer serves the intended purpose, instead simply causing mass overregulation that devalues each nation’s own sovereignty and economic fl exibility whilst taking away much of its perceived individual control. An economy cannot develop under these kinds of stringent condi ons. The EU itself has always been considered to be resistant to positive change that would actually allow for economic growth. Its founding was for the purpose of prosperity and free trade at a time when Europe was looking to come together a er years of war and conflict, creating common markets in industries such as coal and steel before leading to the fi rst concept of an economic community known as the Treaty of Rome in 1957. Countries such as France, Italy and West Germany began this as a way to increase the amount of trade and build bridges, yet that kind of isola onism no longer exists in the modern day meaning that the need for such agreement is much lower, yet rather than understand this, the European Union instead has become an en ty governing with an aim on securing more power over its members with no ons to become one – there already exists a fl ag, anthem, fi ve presidents and its own currency aimed at gaining fi nancial control. Such structure causes great regulatory distress with issues like the overlooked tax structure limi ng business prospects. There is no encouragement towards business development, with the outdated system expec ng increased contribu ons despite the constant decline in economic opportunity. The lack of progress is felt through the development restraints as while long established companies like Volvo con nue to thrive, there is no European innova on to provide alterna ves to Facebook, Amazon or Google due to the condi ons needed to support such ventures simply not exis ng in a European Union framework. Not only is this detrimental to the individual governments, but they are actually failing in their trading endeavours. Economies work off of the ability to increase trade as no country can be self-suffi cient, and the global market has grown exponen ally with its u lisa on incredibly lucra ve, yet these opportunities are limited as the EU tries to enforce the maximisa on of trading within its own borders. This is a severe drawback when considering the poten al that may be possible for the states to revolu onise their exports at a me when the market clearly indicates that Europe has actually stopped growing in many major areas.

Some countries joined the Union with the explicit intention to adopt the Euro currency and provide fi nancial stability by entering a market with promises of growth, lower unemployment through free movement and increased access to favourable trading partnerships that would lead to their own individual boom period. Instead the Euro has underperformed bi erly, instead of increasing the economic performance of such na ons it has simply become a divisive issue that causes debate and tension between na ons who did and did not adopt it as well as eroding the confidence of member states in the future both internally and also from global partners who sense instability they would suff er from. This loss of opportunity has also meant that the larger and greater contribu ng states have been le paying for the failures and mistakes made by na ons in fi nancial distress such as Greece and Italy. Countries like the UK, France and Germany are responsible for providing large amounts of bailout funding for such southern European countries who have lost mon ney and expected to be saved if y were to go bust at the expense ofthey er’sothe economic success. The fi nancial crash of Greece was a prime example of this with the support package arranged considered faulty and poorly designed, especially as if they defaulted and became unable to make repayments, this would have adversely amaged the economies they wereda relying on due to a large increase in na onal debt, with Italy too large of a an economy and lacking enough fi nancial stability to actually survive s uld this happen.hou Thes e e causes continue to be further weakened by the lack of actualr enforcement that is possible, the EU has tried to make demands but due e to their needing to be a ratification by a majority, there is no scope to make widescale changes such h as they tried to do on the matter of austerity which would have actu ually been counterproductive due e to the struggling economies actually needing investment rather than enforced regula on. Even the commitments that were agreed to with 60% GDP levels of debt established as a benchmark are consistently breached by the likes of France and Germany, as such is their posi on and Infl uence that there exists no real of way to eff ec vely punish them whilst they would have seen great economic damage had they followed the rules. The EU fails to provide eff ec ve governance when it expects economies of greater poten al to follow stricter rules and pay larger compensa on which limit its ability for success, all for the benefit of less able na ons. Such unequal contribu on is a crucial factor behind Brexit, the result of which brings many more ques ons to the economic viability of the Union. The EU only survives based on individual contribu on and the UK’s economy is equivalent to that of 18 other member states, with this kind of extreme financial loss fracturing fi nances it only serves to show that those s ll trapped in this agreement will only suff er as they lose both money and trade opportunity should the current sanc ons be enforced. There are also weakened economical protec ons with Britain as one of the largest proponents of a liberal free trade market leaving, it makes it much more possible to revert to a reduc onist, con nentally restricted trade policy that will contribute to the already expected job losses, an -federalism and unstable poli cal environment due to be created as other major EU powers look to take over Britain’s power posi ons. The UK is also America’s gateway and so the special rela onship may not translate over into the EU, causing even greater losses from one of the only non-EU trade agreements. Euroscep cs have been looking for a me to try and launch their own methods of escape, and poli cal par es in countries such as Poland and Italy are slowly gaining more power to leverage their own possible referendums and subsequent withdrawals, or as a minimum to change the group in a way that would undermine the principles and basic ideals that it intends to represent. If more and more ac on is taken, the economic outlook will be so unstable that member na ons could fi nd themselves considered too risky to trade with and could result in serious depression like states, which would only fuel a greater power push from the EU as it reacts to keep control. The EU no longer has the same understood func on that it was founded to provide, with it serving now as a bureaucratic and isolationist body that seeks to use its own members to ensure personal success despite obvious detriment. The loss of the UK is a signal of how the promise of free trade and economic prosperity has been replaced with doubts and rebellion against overly controlling policy that causes more harm to a country than good. The longer the EU exists in its current form, and the longer it insists on trying to control and manage the trading and economical posi on of its members, the much lower opportuni es there will be to gain economic success. If prospect and hope is the vision for a na on, then they simply will not fi nd it within the European Union.