European Diversification

After David Cameron’s strong stance towards European Union this spring it will be inspiring to see if the┬ácamaraderie in Brussels take the hint to look at and re-evaluate their inadequate and overly intruding policies.

What is now known as European Union, was initiated in 1951 to somehow, by unification of European states, protect them from atrocities similar to those which had riddled the continent between 1939 and 1945. For the most part it had served its purpose as for the past 70 years Europe has not experienced an all consuming war.

Since its beginnings European Union as an institution grew, every decade adding new states, becoming a more and more dominating force within Europe and an important ‘partner’ for non-European states. It has outgrown its primary objective and developed more intricate socio-political agendas to keep the member states dependent on its decisions.

Undeniably, Angela Merkel is the key player in decision making and it seems she pulls majority of the strings in Brussels. And so one (if not more) of Hitler’s objectives for the WWII – to uplift Germany from the economic crisis of the Great War has been met – today Germany is not only one of the strongest economies in Europe but a dominating one as well.

Merkel’s economic ambitions to control Europe under one currency is symptomatic of a Nazi thought of uniformity (as opposed to union) and ever so transparent after her decisions with regards to Greece. Germany not only reaps the rewards of that decision but Greece is paying for its own lack of awareness and discipline. The fact that these two countries are totally elsewhere when it comes to development is beside the point. Or is it?

Economically Europe will never be USA, Russia or China and why would it want to be? It is far too diverse to perform well under restrictions or conforming to rules which are artificially imposed. For European Union to dictate to Greece it could produce/export only XYZ amount of tomatoes when Greek soil is capable of producing 3 x XYZ goes against the cosmic law of self-realisation (self-fulfillment) and natural law of balance. Of course after sometime the country’s wealth which in ‘natural’ environment could overflow and be shared, is restricted and therefore wasted, not re-invested.

Similarly, for an administrator in Brussels who had never visited Poland, who knows very little about the country to decide that Polish shipyards should collapse because EU had a different idea about economy, is shortsighted, ignorant and symptomatic of linear thinking. Every country develops at a different rate and every stage of that development is not only necessary for growth but can be harnessed for the benefit of the country and The Whole. But to understand that we would need to think outside of the globalisation box.

It is in its diversification that European wealth and true empowerment lie, not in following Merkel’s power trip; Greek, Lithuanian, Romanian etc. economies and resources will never be the same as Germany’s – how could they be measured with the same stick and criteria, how could these societies ever grow and prosper being given standards which are inadequate, often unattainable and in the long run, detrimental for the stability of Europe?

David Cameron’s demands for change in Europe are grounded and, although delivered too late and for selfish reasons, should be looked at objectively. Institutions of European Union grew into a monster which jeopardizes the values with which it was created in the first place. If it doesn’t change to reflect the diversity of the member states it will face a growing opposition from within and outwith its ranks. It may well be that, as it stands, England (rather than Britain) would be indeed better off outside of European Union. On the other hand, Europe could be facing challenges of a totally different nature in 2017.

Related posts: Cata~c~lyst, 8 Feb 2015