I suspect
EU officials would explain the regulations are a necessary part of the plan to amalgamate
the member nations into one large state.
When a country joins the EU it agrees to abide by the EU regulations
(current and future). However I suspect
this isn't the full story. If
harmonizing regulations (laws) across all members was essential why hasn't the
EU done the same with fiscal union?
Fiscal
union is defined as "decisions about the collection and expenditure
of taxes are taken by common institutions, shared by the participating
governments". The EU hasn't
adopted fiscal union, however many of the members have adopted monetary union
using the Euro as a common currency.
Adopting monetary union without fiscal union is somewhat like being
partially pregnant. Nations share the
same currency but the value of that currency is then dependent upon the
finances of individual members. The EU
attempts to resolve this issue by requiring members to limit their national
debt as a set maximum percentage of the GDP.
However members have frequently ignore this (eg, Greece). It's difficult to obtain an accurate picture
of the EU's finances as even the EU's own auditors have been unable to give the
EU accounts a clean bill of health. But
then my belief is financial accountability is secondary to political union and
control. Which brings me back to
regulations.
Regulations are a means of control. Control what the people can do. Control industry, commerce and the
environment. Big business loves the EU
and spends considerable funds lobbying Brussels to enact legislation
(regulations) which protects them. A
large business has the necessary funds to comply with a volume of EU
regulations whilst the smaller competitor is simply incapable of
competing. In effect, the EU is killing
competition when it's competition which encourages innovation and drives down
costs. The EU also uses regulations to
protect its own producers. Let's assume
you are a small EU producer of widgets. You
churn out the same old widgets you've always produced. One day you are horrified to discover a
Chinese widget makers is exporting widgets to the EU. Not only are they cheaper, but they are
better quality. You head to Brussels
where you successfully lobby for widget
regulations, tariffs and quotas to be introduced. This has the effect of limiting competition.
Another example who be the effect on the NZ
dairy industry when the UK joined the EEC.
The EU gave the NZ dairy industry five years to adapt to the UK's
membership with decreasing dairy quotas each year. Moreover the EU implemented very strict
hygiene regulations for non EU dairy producers.
So high that if the dairy farmer met the EU regulations you could almost
eat off the milking shed floor. Of
course the EU didn't impose the same regulatory standards on its own dairy
producers (which is why I wouldn't recommend eating off a French milking shed
floor). This was a simple case of using
regulations to protect inefficient industry.
Interestingly, by achieving these high EU regulatory standards NZ's
dairy industry was able to produce a high quality product at an internationally
competitive price. The NZ dairy output
has grown significantly with high quality competitively priced NZ dairy
products being exported to new markets all over the world. But not much of it goes to the EU where
inefficient producers are protected.
So in my opinion too many regulations are a bad thing
stifling innovation and competitiveness. Standards
drop and prices increase.
My main criticism of the EU would be the deliberate lack of effective
democratic accountability to the electorate is leading to yet more autocratic
rule by the EU political elite and an unaccountable bureaucracy running wild
drafting reams of regulations which are rubber stamped by a pampered EU
parliament. I don't believe this is sustainable.
No comments :
Post a Comment