European Union biggest problem is not just about “sharing debt” (as A. Merkel once has mentioned) but the free movement of persons and goods, an “European idea” of a cultural and social collective[1], under the form of a community and not just a circumstantial financial union. Is precisely here and only here that European institutions fails on it´s commitment at a macro level perspective, making the rest of areas fail as well, like a tornado effect that sweep with the pillar of the Union: political will to be part of a system.
We´re in a regressive process in which financial crisis create a so negative impact that make countries like UK and Greece see an exit as the only solution for all their problems. But if we go back on time, before the financial crisis, is clear that there were undoubtedly advantages in being part of the EU, and countries like Greece and UK have widely profited. Two different countries with two different approaches and reasons for leaving the EU, are showing us that European representation is not giving the correct answers, and not just for countries with an in-depth crisis. This could only means that EU needs to revamp their institutions and policies not just to gain acceptance thorough citizenship but also to be effective and build resilience for present and future shocks. A solid system has solid institutions that are responsive in shocks time and the union is what give them strength, consistence and guidelines to move forward for the own interest of the country in crisis and for the sake of the rest of the country members.
The differences among North and South countries are paramount in many aspects particularly the financial one. There is a break among management and policies strategies in which Northern countries have shown a strong capacity to handle with big issues like public spending and corruption. A Union as a regional agreement or a common market not necessary need equal management policies but equal accountability as the main “trade d´union” that gives coherence to the system. Expect that a country with different cultures, different political and sociological structure will be equal in the solution of their problems is a utopia.
A common market needs institutions strong enough to support countries on their development and is precisely their disparities that make them enough rich and productive to interact with each other. Policies and financial strategies from an international organization is what make countries be reinserted faster in the common market or sink and scatter neighbour countries with them. Blame a country for their debt or failures on good governance is not a good excuse to avoid the real origin of the problem: wrong approaches and institutional crisis that have left many countries (Spain, Greece, France, Italy) in a slow recovery and stagnation after 7 years of the onset of global financial crisis.
The role of the institutions is paramount to maintain the stability in a common or regional market in which precisely the disparity among countries –economic-financial-political-cultural- force to establish rules and actions that serves to keep the system in balance by the harmonization of supranational regulations that respond automatically in any situation, particularly in crisis of any kind. We have recent examples in which joint efforts have been an asset and not just a “conflict” country that undermines the stability of the rest. I am referring to the adoption of the first set of concrete measures to implement the first European Agenda on Migration by the European Commission[2] Once again the advantages of a common action by the EU have given results with plenty of success.In financial aspects is almost the same, the common action is what rescue others to be affected by their negative impact. If this countries will not part of the EU is clear that the consequences would be even worsen. What is a burden for countries with important levels of public debt and corruption are the wrong strategies and management adopted by international institutions that are leading the process. In addition, there are not common financial institutions with mechanisms of regulation and control hence, financial institutions are not submitted to any kind of accountability process. Again this is a crisis at institutional level that undermine the legitimation of their acts.Is not of common sense to go back to resolve conflict situations. Leaving EU means precisely that: going back 60 years (Treaty of Rome signed on 1957) of negotiations and a hard process. The frustration that inaccurate financial international decisions brought should be channelled by reforms and proposals not by a reactionary attitude as “exits” represents. To move forward we need to revamp European institutions and create new regulations, strategies and accountability to face future financial shocks. There is an structure that do not represent countries interests, hence do not respond effectively in times of crisis. It´s definitely true that financial crisis has exposed the EU institutional failures and not the ineffectiveness of the system in itself.
thesustainabilityreader 
One thought on “EUROPEAN UNION: revamp or die”