For many years now the nurturing of European Union still linger
in the minds of many economist how can the member countries deliver a prosperous
and positive contribution to each member country. Many aspects that must be considered not only
covers the money and politics but the realities from the past up to the present
situation. The publication of Joseph E.
Stiglitz gives as a view in terms of the EU financial crisis related to the
banking system and specifically the European banking system. Although Stiglitz view also that EU is “too
important to be destroyed” yet many aspect in his publication considers the
negative outcome of EU unification. The theories of reform from different
economist such as James Meade who is a
Nobel Prize winning economist suggest that a reform in EU specifically the
financial system must be re-modelled in terms of the financial system and
banking system to accommodate the national insurance system for example that
will elevate the status of the member countries. Such system is hard to formulate given that
the member countries are exclusive in their policies in terms of national
economic system given the fact that each country has its existing economic
policies.
Moreover, the theories of
Kelvin Lancaster and Richard Lipsey suggest that reducing economic barriers
such us tariffs will higher the economic risk that will result and induces firms
to shift production to activities that yield lower returns but are safer, and
the net effect is that everyone can be worst off. On the contrary, migration is another issue
that gives EU both positive and negative outcome in its economy that in terms
of business and economy being activity in human mobility will induce the travel
industry for example that in return the movement of people across the EU borders
will generate more economic income to the member countries. For example if Greece that is experiencing the
ailing economic status among the EU member countries can take advantage of the
residual economic activities of other member countries that are perspiring their
economic profits across the borders of other EU member countries. With this regard in my previous blog I
discuss vividly the concept of tariff advantage among member countries and the
trade policy advantage that one member country can take all the advantages from
other EU member countries. Thus, Greece
is hugely taking an advantage of its membership in EU. But in the case of England and the case of
Brexit it turns out that in the case of England economy the deficit starts to
rise in accordance to the needs of the member countries.
Likewise, in the case of other group of countries
such as NAFTA, AFTA, and ASEAN for example relates a similar issue with regards
to the given case. Relatively, the case of the Chinese economy penetrating now
in the economies of the Africas and South East Asian nations conceives that
China and its exploding money lending program elevates their economic and
political power in the regions of Africa and South East Asia. Indeed, we can relate the opposite resulting
scenario in terms of the case of England and the member countries of EU. As England tries to “Brexit” their country
from the EU group of countries knowing that it will compromise their economic
and the overall national security of the kingdom. But on the case of China they
continue to rise according to their money lending skim throughout the world. As
the pail of cash still tilting towards Chinese economy still they have the
capacity to lend cash to gain political momentum related to economy and
military influence. With the case of
England and China we can clearly see the grey area of the theory definition as
to why China tends to spread their influence through money and goods related to
lending business across the world while England are so conservative with the legislative
arguments with Greece and other EU member countries. German Prime Minister is so saddened with the
exit of England as an EU member. With
China as a conservative government how come that they are so aggressive in integrating
their political powers in countries around the world without out thinking their
conservative kind of government policies.
To give an example, the case of google company and facebook company that
they try to exclude in their national economic business operations proves that China
is conservative in their policy making.
But when it comes to the integration of business and economic programs
around the world, China with no inhibition joins almost all the national projects
around the world. With the given setup
of China towards the world economy today why does England and US for example
can copy the stance of China in terms of business and economy towards the world. Why does in the case of EU, England can feel
the disadvantages in terms of economic and political security given the fact of
the performance of Greece as a member country of EU. Another issue that would make my blog readers
ponder is the continued integration of China to other economies like the ASEAN.
Do you think that by allowing China to join any economic operations with the
ASEAN member countries will give and positive output in terms of business and
politics? In the case of Hong Kong and
Taiwan Main Land China is a huge no no to the integration of policies and
economic operation between these two countries and Mainland China. Many blog articles circulating in the Philippines
today states that why should we be afraid of Mainland China that in fact a lot
of National Business operators in the country Philippines are all Chinese by
race. Well, Chinese race is the dominant race in Asia. Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong are all
Chinese but when England withdraw their political and economic influence in
Hong Kong, the general public in Hong Kong starts to tremble that the political
influence of Main Land China will finally start again in Hong Kong. At the moment I am also reading the book of
Tristram Hunt intitled “Ten Cities that made an Empire” one of the chapters in
the publication of hunt portrays the last sail of Her Majesty’s Ship Royal
Yacht Britannia sails in Hong Kong harbor, 23 June 1997. That time is the time that after a week the
territory was handed back to China after more than 150 years of British Rule. So
why does England surrender Hong Kong same with their membership in EU.
Is it a matter of preserving their sovereignty
or their system is more of a defensive mode of the sovereignty rather invading
other economy and political lands like what China is doing with the Philippines. How can ASEAN resolve the matters in West
Philippine sea or ASEAN will just submit to the flex of political muscle
towards the region just like what the English and Hong Kong people are doing
last June 1997. On another note, in some countries especially the emerging from
fascism and communism there was enthusiasm about being part of Europe. Indeed, the prospect of joining the EU
provided a major impetus for institutional reforms that played an important
role in the success of the countries in eastern and central Europe as they made
a transition from communism to a market economy. Likewise in the case of China, in the matters
of integrating their conservative communist economy to the world and even US is
it time that China will also submit to the transition of their communist and
socialist economy to market economy. As
I wrote my last blog regarding the continued rising of people’s grievances in
China it is but very possible that their will come a time of dramatic change of
communism form of government in China that will affect the balance of politics
and trade through out the world. In this
note, would it be possible that EU will become the super power when China will
become neutralized in terms of political and economic policy integration to
other countries around the world? The book of Richard J. Evans which I will
write a blog article solely to the theories and hypothesis of Evans. One of the political concepts of Evans in his
publications conveys the power of Europe in terms of politics that drives the
military and economic crises in the European region.
The implications of Joseph E. Stiglitz that
portrays only the economic and business aspects of EU towards its member
countries did not consider the inner realities regarding the struggle of EU to
be united. In the first part of the book
pf Stiglitz proves that some of the member countries are taking advantage of
transitioning their government reforms from communism towards a more capitalist
form of government. At the moment only,
Russia is not in accordance with the policies that leading countries of EU are
implementing. Germany and France are in
the leading countries in upholding the dream of uniting the European countries. Since the Napoleonic war in 1816 a lot of
military theorist like Carlvon Clausewitz (1780-1831) are dreaming of a peaceful
Europe and providing some smaller countries in Europe with enough food to
prevent famine. As the new generation today,
we cannot fathom the inner struggle of the smaller countries in Europe why they
need to unite. Not all countries in
Europe are blessed like England were their economic privileges exceeds their needs.
In the case of ASEAN group of countries, is ASEAN creating an advantage in
terms of the economic endeavor of the member countries or it is just a fly by
night political groupings that later it will suffer what the EU members specifically
England. Can EU survive in the future of
civilization?
Comments