Numerous member states make up todayâ€™s European Union, and it grows every so often to incorporate new members. All these states pay for the expenses of the E.U., including administrative costs, EU subsidies, and other forms of aid given by the E.U.
In return for their contribution, each state expects to receive an equal share of E.U. aid back, in one or other form.
Funds administered by the European Commission are therefore subject to being distributed mostly according to geography rather than based on merit or need. Because such awarding method is meaningless, this reflects on the efficiency, quality and usefulness of several major E.U. projects.
For instance, the â€œEurofighterâ€ and the â€œGalileoâ€ project have had to assign manufacturing responsibilities of different parts of the systems to different E.U. countries, simply for the sake of wealth distribution, putting aside efficiency concerns. Because of the geographical distribution of different manufacturing facilities, transportation is needed, adding unnecessary cost to the project. Moreover, possibly cheaper manufacturing facilities located outside Europe may not have been considered, because it would imply that E.U. funds are given outside of Europe.
In other words, the development of a European fighter aircraft, or a European satellite navigation system seem to be secondary matters, superseded by the primary goal of achieving supposedly fair distribution of E.U. money among its members.
European funds must not be tied to a geographical distribution scheme when large projects need to be awarded. It may very well be that a given project may have to be carried out by one main contractor, doing away with participation by a predetermined number of EU states. The E.U. must either rid itself from such constraints, or take on a new and different structure if the aim of a unified Europe working together for a common goal for its citizensâ€™ benefit is to be achieved.