With the recent European Reform Treaty, it is topical to consider the nature of, and the justification for the European Union. The central point to make here is that whatever justification for the EU that is given, it is either false or not worth it. Indeed, the EU is detrimental to the prosperity of many countries in the world.

The primary reason for the creation of a pan-European economic and, subsequently political, organisation was to ensure greater integration, especially between France and Germany, in order to ensure that war would never again divide the continent. In this respect, if the EU has done anything at all to help, it has been entirely successful. However, would anyone argue that there is still work to be done? Are the Gauls and Aryans primed and ready to battle it out for supremacy as soon as the mystical shroud of political federation, as provided by the EU, is lifted? This may seem trite, but there is a serious point: since even before the creation of a European Community, its work has been done. War between France and Germany was not made obsolete by a form of coalition in the 1950s, but by the destruction and inhumanity of World War Two. As such, Europhiles have always sought new and elaborate justifications for the EU, almost all of which are false.

Rather than repeat thousands of other articles on the same subject and list the different justifications propounded in support of the EU only to refute them, I shall look at one function of the EU and the associated argument in favour of its existence. This is to re-distribute wealth through development aid from wealthier European nations to those that are less developed and to open up their trade markets in order to raise their GDP and living standards. One can argue that Britain itself benefited from this very principle when it was the sick man of Europe before the economic reforms of Margaret Thatcher. However, this great benefit of the EU is undermined by the nature of the Union itself, thereby eradicating any intrinsic benefit derived from redistribution. These problems are: global issues, immigration, and centralisation.

Through the EU, we deal only with the problems on our small continent. In contrast, it is beyond our Eurocentric world that the majority of unacceptable crises can be found. Of course, one can argue that the EU can function as an effective aid organisation to the world. However, this is not possible when the EU implements protectionist economic sanctions. The EU is an oppressive economic bloc, limiting free trade (as well as the scope for fair trade) in order to maintain its economic dominance at the expense of developing world economies. For example, every year the EU destroys tonnes of food in order to keep prices high. Moreover, market competition from outside the EU is restricted. It is only through trade (be it free, fair or otherwise) that individual producers and countries can hope to gain the wealth necessary to prosper.

What is more, when we look at the free movement of people within Europe, we see that aid within the EU is similarly undermined. This is because immigration within the EU removes the population needed for economic growth from the countries that seek development. Those in favour of immigration in Britain tend to point to the (supposed) vast economic benefit migrants bring to our shores. However, paradoxically, are we not being selfish when we call for more immigrants? This is because it impedes growth in the countries these people are leaving. Instead, we privilege our own prosperity above that of other people in the world. As such, those left behind are also left behind in terms of living standards and the opportunity in order to improve their quality of life compared with those living in Britain.

The centralised and authoritarian nature of the EU also undermines the development aid given to less economically developed member states. This is because the terms of this aid is dictated by the western European countries that dominate the EU through majority voting. In this way, the historical and cultural development of the country receiving aid is neglected, and, effectively, suppressed. As such, the benefit of that development aid is undermined. For example, a policy that suits the British economy, dominated by the private sector, may not be suitably implemented on the continent where the social economy is more prevalent. The best initiatives have to take the historical and cultural milieu of a nation into account. This cannot be achieved at a pan-European level.

In conclusion, the European Union’s aim to help development in less economically developed member states is admirable and justifiable. However, the framework within which it is conducted does not work. First, it undermines global development through economic restrictions. Second, development within the EU is undermined by free immigration. And third, derived from its centralised and authoritarian nature, the terms of aid to other countries is dictated by the major European powers, which may not suit the historical and cultural development of the recipient country. As such, one may wonder whether this noble aim of the EU is worth it considering the adverse consequences.

Of course, there are many other arguments in favour of the EU. Examples include better trade between European countries, regulatory consistency, and a political power to counteract the hegemony of the United States of America. However, these arguments seem to suffer from the same problem as that given above: they fail to justify the creation of an additional and cripplingly expensive layer of bureaucracy, whose aims are undermined by its very nature. However, that is for another article to discuss.

The nature of debt, and our attitude to it, has changed significantly since the nineteenth century. While the debtors’ prison used to spark fear into people’s minds, we are now, in Britain, living with a £1.3 trillion debt mountain. The cause of this change to the perception of debt can be traced to growing affluence allowing people to have mortgages, and the creation of the Welfare State leading to the entitlement mentality.

To assess the modern debt culture, it is necessary to consider how people’s attitudes to debt have changed. In the late-seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when banking and credit systems developed most people were too poor to gain credit. As such, there grew a popular image that only dishonest businessmen and the feckless upper classes were able to fall into debt.
This attitude toward debt changed in the late twentieth century as more people were able to gain credit. With growing affluence and the desire to own one’s own home, mortgage debt became more common. Thus, debt lost its association with the greedy and frivolous as it became just as common among hard working families. However, because debt was no longer stigmatised, people were able to abuse credit systems for their own self-indulgence.

The idea of using credit to support a lifestyle beyond one’s means is derived from the culture of entitlement that began with the creation of the Welfare State. The Welfare State is based on the idea that everyone has an equal entitlement to certain things, most notably, education and health care. However, this precedent has led some people to believe that they are ‘entitled’ to a standard of living that is beyond their means. Thus, credit is seen as a right because it liberates people from the limits their income places on their lifestyle. The most common example of this is mortgages. Although house prices have outstripped the increase in real wages, people remain unwilling to accept that they cannot afford the same quality of house as they may have done ten years ago. The result is more excessive debt.

Of course, this is not the only reason. In addition, the credit card has transformed the way people view money. Instead of conducting transactions directly with real currency, people are now paying virtually. The result is that people’s perception of their wealth and their spending is reduced. Moreover, it can be argued that banks and loan companies have accentuated the problem of debt by offering larger loans to those who cannot afford the repayments. Nevertheless, this must not distract us from the central fact that excessive debt and its social acceptance is a manifestation of the modern culture of entitlement.

On one level, the process of changing people’s attitude to excessive debt and its acceptability has already begun. There are increasing signs that the economic climate is changing for the worse. In structural terms, a debt-based economy relies on liquidity in order to pay off, and take out, loans quickly and efficiently. Thus, the recent ‘credit crunch’ and its adverse effects, most notably on Northern Rock, demonstrates the flaws of a debt-based economy. Moreover, the Citizen Advice Bureau has pointed out that the number of people making debt enquiries has doubled in ten years to 6,600 every day. In all, people are increasingly aware that excessive debt breeds instability and cannot be supported in a period of economic turmoil.

Nevertheless, it must be appreciated that changing the mentality of entitlement is key. This is a long process with no certain means of implementation. However, in general, people need to be instilled with a sense of social responsibility. This can only be achieved by making people realise that they cannot rely on the government to solve all of their problems, but that sometimes they need to use their own initiative. We need to do away with the ‘people dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good’ as described by T.S. Eliot.

In conclusion, as mortgage debt became more common, debt in general lost its stigma. Some people were then able to abuse this liberal attitude to debt by borrowing money to live the lifestyle to which they thought themselves entitled; a mentality derived from the Welfare State. The solution is to make people appreciate that they cannot support excessive debt in a period of economic instability, of which it itself is a cause. Moreover, more generally, it is necessary to combat the mentality of entitlement by instilling a concept of social responsibility.