As I
read through this book and considered the author’s increasingly convincing
arguments against the European Union, I began asking myself if this could
possibly be an unbiased opinion. Surely
Roger Bootle must have been commissioned by UKIP to justify their policy of
withdrawal. But then I looked again at the
author’s credentials as one of the UK’s leading economic commentators.
Admittedly he has right wing credentials as a columnist for the Telegraph and an adviser to George Osborne but this is someone who has received prizes for his writing and surely would not knowingly produce biased arguments. This view is reinforced by the approach of the book, which is to present logical and fact-based arguments, rather than the rabid rhetoric of UKIP and other tribal Eurosceptics.
Admittedly he has right wing credentials as a columnist for the Telegraph and an adviser to George Osborne but this is someone who has received prizes for his writing and surely would not knowingly produce biased arguments. This view is reinforced by the approach of the book, which is to present logical and fact-based arguments, rather than the rabid rhetoric of UKIP and other tribal Eurosceptics.
The book
adopts a logical and easily readable structure, starting with the EU’s
formation and original intentions. He
accepts that the political objective of stopping France and Germany from
destroying each other every now and again was a valid one but points out that
as a political - rather than economic - institution, the EU is a mess. He argues that it emasculates nation states
without replacing them and has become undemocratic, resulting in the widespread
hostility to the Brussels establishment.
It is
however his economic arguments that are the most powerful. He reports a convincing record of economic
underachievement after the early success which helped to entice UK politicians
to apply for entry. But even before the
Eurozone was created, there were problems of slow growth compared to the rest
of the world and, following the introduction of the single currency, a downward
slide that was an inevitable disaster.
Countries with such widely different levels of economic performance
could never operate together with one currency unless the good performers were
willing and able to subsidise the poor or the poor were prepared to suffer
economic hardship. Both scenarios are
now taking place.
Bootle
also points out that freedom of movement between countries with such widely
varying levels of income was never likely to be practical and was made worse by
the late entrants to the Euro from the former Soviet bloc; his comparison of
the GDP per capita of these new entrants with the larger countries brings this
home in a convincing, fact-based way.
His last
three chapters move from history and diagnosis to the practical issues involved
if or when the UK leaves the EU or the institution is broken up. Perhaps there is an element of wishful
thinking here because Bootle clearly believes that one of these outcomes should
take place. He puts down the fact that
it has not happened already to the incompetence and ‘head in the sand’ attitude
of the bureaucrats.
My
overall assessment is that this is a surprisingly easy read for a book on such
a complex and potentially boring subject.
It is not too long - just over 200 pages - but it still covers the topic
comprehensively and convincingly. It
certainly convinced me - a likely floating voter in a referendum – that the UK
would be better outside the EU. If everyone was made to read it before the 2017
referendum - assuming it happens - it would likely lead to a landslide in
favour of exit. My only reservation is
that it is almost too convincing and led me to think - surely so many
politicians couldn’t be so stupid, but then again ……
No comments:
Post a Comment