Archived Articles

Simeon Mitropolitski is a Canadian analyst, of Bulgarian origin, and a former syndicated columnist with the Bulgarian News Agency (BTA). He is the author of several hundred articles dealing with hot political and economic topics, both national and international.

He was part of the first group of Bulgarian intellectuals and students that began the opposition movement that finally put an end to the communist regime in this country in 1989, and in 1996-1997 participated in international observation teams during the elections in several Balkan countries - Romania, Albania and Bulgaria.

In 2002 Simeon and his family moved from Bulgaria to Canada where they live now in Montreal, province of Quebec. Simeon is a Master of Political Science from McGill University and a B.A. of Political Science and History.

Global Real Estate Project
News Index

Directories
  Int'l Realty
  US Realty

Europe is a strange continent. Unlike many others, it hasn't clear eastern borders. Many authors have different concepts over where borders should be placed. For some they roughly coincide with the former European Union before its 2004 enlargement. For others, the new enlargement more exactly follows their understanding of Europe. There is a third group that doesn't think of Europe without the Balkans. Possible forth geometry will include some former Soviet Union republics and why not, the European part of Russia. Whatever the final form of the European Union in place, some will argue that it has exceeded its "natural" boundaries; others will argue just the opposite. Which are the pluses and the minuses of the new waves of enlargement and can EU absorb so many new members in no time?

Before the end of the Cold War everything seemed clear. The EU or the European Community as it was known at that time, encompassed only countries that stood on the capitalist side of the iron curtain. There was no suggestion to go further, the economic, political and social systems between the two blocks were incompatible. Starting as an elitist club of the rich capitalist nations in 1957, the EU gradually invited not so rich countries to join hands (Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland). The outcome of this experiment is inconclusive. One of these poorer members fared very well (Ireland), another more or less (Spain), two still try to catch up with the main group (Portugal, Greece). Immediately after the end of the Cold War 3 new rich members joined he club (Finland, Sweden, and Austria). The club remained largely elitist, out of 15 members at least 12 claimed to be among the richest nations in the world.

The end of communism put a difficult question on the table of the club, what to do with the European former communist countries? Where ends Europe and begins non-Europe (where the EU enlargement should stop)? EU politicians developed a sense of guiltiness toward their eastern neighbors because of the Cold War division. To help these countries develop up to the West European levels became top priority in Brussels. After years of difficult internal and external talks, the EU decided to invite 12 countries (13 if e count Turkey) to join the union. 10 of them already became members earlier this year.

Membership unfortunately doesn't end the process of European integration for most of these 10 new members; it's rather only beginning of the long road. Putting aside the three most advanced economically new members (Malta, Cyprus, and Slovenia), the other 7 have lower living standard as percentage to the EU average than Spain and Portugal had in early 1980's. The other members to join (Bulgaria and Romania) have even worse economic statistics. Instead of one half of the EU average they barely reach one forth. Without any overstatement most of these new members are and will be burdens to the EU budget. The task to integrate these countries economically is more difficult than that of the former West Germany dealing with its new east provinces after 1990. The outcome there is also inconclusive at best, and with no doubt far from the expected economic boom while the reunification took place.

In the case of Central and Southeast Europe the problems are even bigger. The EU won't take over the local administration (as West Germany was able to do in the former DDR), it won't forcefully introduce its legislature and enforce it, it won't forcefully create clear economic rules, and it won't be able to cut the corruption to more tolerable levels. If 15 years weren't enough for East Germany to look like West Germany after hundreds of billions of subsidies, how big are the chances of the new EU members to catch up in the next 15 years with the club of the rich? Slight but real if we look at Slovenia and Cyprus, only theoretical if we look at Poland, pure utopia if we consider Romania.

The financial problems of the rich EU countries are growing and the window of opportunity when they could have successfully financed the enlargement is gradually closing. With no financial reforms in sight within 5-6 years the tax pool will begin shrinking. With the top financial priority to find enough resources to compete with America and Asia in the new technologies, Europe will gradually put the integration subsidies on the shelf waiting for better times. It's already clear that the new EU members won't be able to enjoy the same financial subsidies for their agriculture as the old members. It's clear that the EU won't be able to finance the bill for up to 200 billion to clean up the environment in the former communist countries. For most people in New Europe the EU membership will somehow improve the living standard but won't automatically turn their countries into rich and prosperous. 20-30 years ago they could have had bigger chance to catch up. Unfortunately the history rarely gives second chances.

--------------------

See also the directory of companies providing real estate services in, and general real estate information of Europe.