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 issue of fair trade arouses many emotions. However, for all the good it does, many of its successes are mediocre in comparison with what could be achieved by allowing free markets.

Fair trade is very cheap and relatively easy to implement. This is because its aim is relatively simple: to provide a ‘fair wage’ to third world producers. Admittedly, the phrase ‘fair wage’ can arouse suspicion, but, in general, this is a sensible estimate based on standard prices in the place or region the products are being imported from.

A good example of fair trade at work is with coffee; especially considering that many coffee companies now proudly proclaim that they only use fair trade products. A fair wage for the average coffee plantation and its workers is approximately double the price for each bag of coffee beans. To the average coffee shop consumer, this works out at about an extra penny on each cup of coffee. Although this probably seems suspect, when one considers the number of coffee beans in a bag, and the number used in the average cup of coffee, one can appreciate that this figure is correct.

As a result, we can see that fair trade is very cheap for the average consumer, and relatively easy to implement. However, it is legitimate to ask two questions: (1) Is this really the best solution we can provide to help third world producers; and (2) Does the implementation of economic controls maximise the potential economic benefits? The answer to both questions is no.

If we want to provide producers with the best possible opportunity to maximise their economic potential, it is necessary to provide them with free trade, not fair trade. It is a sad fact, but we do not live in the capitalist world that those on the Left blame for many of the world’s problems. The prime example is, of course, the European Union. Its range of protectionist measures, epitomised by the Common Agricultural Policy, undermines the global markets, not to mention ripping off the consumer. Every year, hundreds of tons of food is destroyed in order to keep prices artificially high. At the same time, market competition from outside the EU is restricted. Is it then any wonder that third world consumers do not have the opportunity to earn a decent wage?

Ultimately, fair trade is part of the problem rather than the solution. This is because it seeks to use the same type of protectionist measures that makes it necessary in the first place to provide producers with a decent standard of living. Free trade can ensure that producers get the proper price for their products. If this proves to be too low, the producers can then change their economic activity to meet the needs of the consumer.

As it is, even if producers receive a ‘fair wage’ through fair trade, it does not maximise their potential income, and does not guarantee useful economic activity. What is more, because of the nature of fair trade, it legitimates and provides added precedent for the protectionist economic policy of various countries, and institutions like EU. It is ironic that it is these protectionist policies that make fair trade necessary to ensure a decent wage for third world producers. How can we stand by and let this sort of social injustice continue by failing to allow free markets? It is time that we acknowledged that it is time to dispose of fair trade in favour of real free trade.