Why is EU 'common market' limited to Europe?

Nov 2016
1,531
Indus Valley, Pakistan
#1
I want members to listen to this video of President Ayub Khan of Pakistan asking for some sort of economic compact with Europe in early 1960s in Paris before meeting President Charles De Gaulle. Please listen to what he has to say.



President Ayub Khan wanted a trading compact with EU member states. If having a common market is good economic sense then there is no reason not to have it open to members from everywhere. Surely the bigger the market the better it will be. The consumer and the manufacturer will benefit. Why limit the benefits of common market to arbitrary human constructed regions on a map?

There was no geographic limitation when the age of imperialism was playing out. The whole world was oyster. There was no intra or supra-continental hurdles drawn in age of empires. So why could not a common market be also trans-continental that offered emerging newly independant countries a stable market to get off the ground thereby creating stability in the world.

Note Ayub Khan is not asking for political union - so there would be NO right of labour to move. It would be just limited to trade. Given what we see playing out today - in a sense Ayub Khan's warning from the past has come true with the chaos from developing world pouring into Europe.

Would it not have been inestimably better to have had a open common market that took in applicants beyond Europe (mostly ex-colonies) subject to certain conditions. Instead of havinhg economic migrants streaming to Europe looking for jobs they could have jobs in their home countries.

Caveat: This is not a thread that is Euro versus developing world. Please let us just look at President Ayub Khan's proposal and his concern about the future. Would such a proposal have been better for the world? And was it's rejection based simply on racism? Recent Turkish attempts to get entry into EU have merely reinforced this thought.
 
Jun 2016
368
istanbul
#4
If you don't mean the Euro Zone/Single market, (Which you clearly don't mean it), Turkey has been in the European customs union for more than 20 years. And I will tell you, it's not that great thing, especially you are a developing country wheras your partners are fully developed.

Turkey asks some revisions for the agreement with the EU, since the agreement is actually not for Turkey's good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union–Turkey_Customs_Union

Though Ayub Khan has a point obviously. The world needs to work together to fight poverty and unemployment.
 

Belgarion

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,681
Australia
#5
Pakistan, a the time of the Presidents speech, had noting to offer the European Common Market. The European Common Market, as first conceived, was simply a free trading bloc composed of equally well developed economies. As such it was probably a fairly good idea. However problems began when nations with less well developed economies were allowed to join, becoming a drain on the resources of the ECM as a whole. At the same time the idea of the European Union was gaining traction, resulting in a huge bureaucracy and unprecedented interference in the internal affairs of member nations.

The results of unequally developed economies and bureaucratic interference are being reaped today.
 
Oct 2016
268
India
#6
Pakistan, a the time of the Presidents speech, had noting to offer the European Common Market. The European Common Market, as first conceived, was simply a free trading bloc composed of equally well developed economies. As such it was probably a fairly good idea. However problems began when nations with less well developed economies were allowed to join, becoming a drain on the resources of the ECM as a whole. At the same time the idea of the European Union was gaining traction, resulting in a huge bureaucracy and unprecedented interference in the internal affairs of member nations.

The results of unequally developed economies and bureaucratic interference are being reaped today.

Exactly. A group of developed economies in a common market will do well. A group of developed and developing economies in a common market creates all sorts of problems, especially for working-class workers in the former group. This makes it politically untenable. Besides, it's not like WTO trade restrictions are to any degree stifling.
 
Jun 2015
5,723
UK
#7
the point of the EU is European integration. Whether economic, political or military. Pakistan isn't in Europe. And Pakistan never was invaded by Germans, nor liberated by British or Americans/Canadians, or Soviets.

It was always intended, and still is, a European venture.
 

Vaeltaja

Ad Honorem
Sep 2012
3,690
#8
If we talk about the single market then it needs to be understood that to be allowed to enter the single market are you need to uphold the laws and standards of that area as well. Without unified (or at very least compatible) legislature (in that area at least) it would be impossible to have such system.
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,937
Korea
#9
Even certain less developed, less affluent European countries -- countries which are nonetheless still substantially more productive than Pakistan -- have struggled within the bounds of the European Union. The lesson of the EU does not seem to be, "More integration is always better," but rather, "Integration is something which must be handled in a cautious manner, and can easily lead to dysfunction." Beyond that, western citizens seem to have begun to realize that while it might lower consumer prices to some extent in the short term, being in direct competition with workers in impoverished countries ultimately leads to a stark decrease in the value of their own labor as well. Apologists for trade fundamentalism might argue, "Real western wages have remained flat or risen despite increases in global free trade," but what that ignores is the fact that real western wages have not risen to the degree that productivity-per-worker implies they should have risen. A combination of third world labor and automation has seriously impacted the value of labor per unit of productivity. Automation is probably inevitable and arguably even beneficial, but there is nothing inevitable about tariff-free international trade. What western worker right now would look at the status quo and think, "You know, I really want to see my job outsourced to Pakistan?" If anything, what Pakistanis should be worrying about right now is what will happen to their remittance-reliant economy (roughly 7% of GDP in 2015! 7%!) if growing western anti-immigrant sentiment results in the expulsion of Pakistani immigrants (both legal and "refugee"), especially since it would come at the same time as the Middle Eastern oil states facing troubled horizons.

And none of this even gets into the fact that it's unlikely that the Pakistani government has either the inclination or even the logistical capability to enforce the sort of western-style regulations required of a serious shared market program.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2015
5,723
UK
#10
The main issue in integration has been the Euro. Countries like Spain, Portugal, Greece and the poorer regions of the UK, Germany and France have benefitted from EU funding. Some countries such as Ireland have become wealthy in part due to EU regulations. this caused the Celtic Tiger, and they've recovered well enough post-Great Recession.

The single market, or Schengen, or labelling of products, or scientific exchanges, work pretty well. The Euro however was ill-conceived from the start.
 
Similiar History Discussions History Forum Date
North American History

Similar History Discussions