Safer In

That may well prove to be the case, but in the end, these are largely views of politicians. Their scaremongering tactics only impart an overwhelming urge for me to run for the hills in search of intelligent comment and enlightenment, something which I have to some degree found.

The principle of a joined Europe is sound, to the extent that trading on a common platform across the bloc has clear benefits. The single market has evolved from that which we originally signed up to, embodying all its current advantages and encumbrances. But it comes with a habit of overzealous rule-making, which although has provided clear benefits, over-reaches the bounds of what should be reasonably required for central management of policy into areas which would be better left to local management in respective member state governments. The result is unnecessary constraints and burdens, known widely as bureaucratic red tape.

As for the future, both in and out options present uncertainty, I'd say in equal measure - of course they do, it's the future, but the decision to remain isn't a vote for the status quo, as seems to be all too readily assumed. All the rhetoric of fiscal union and ever greater union as a whole will inevitably lead to more compromise. Compromise for the sake of agreement weakens positions of strength to the lowest common denominator forcing  aggregate performance to inevitably fall short of the optimum. The relative poor economic performance of the EU in recent years bears this out, compared to other regions and trading blocs in the world. 

To reach agreement on anything in the EU, a qualified majority of 28 individual states, with diverse and often opposing national priorities has to be reached. This potentially leaves a significant proportion of the EU in opposition to these new rules. Opt-outs and vetoes have withered in the interest of progress, and supposed harmonisation. To be frank, just because we put common rules in place, doesn't mean they work for everyone. In fact, of course the opposite is true, realised in increasing tensions between member states, prompting the rise of nationalism. 

Only 19 of the member states operate the Euro currency, creating another agenda for those in and yet another source of compromise. Don't get me started on the flawed approach to introducing the single currency. I'm not against compromise in principle, we British are renowned for it I believe, but we - Europe can't afford such constraints in a competitive world. Good economic performance creates greater opportunity for development, welfare and social development and in a capitalist world, like it or not, its all about the economy and that has approximately halved in global terms across the EU since its inception.

It's doesn't appear the most compelling case in which to invest our futures.

'I remember well all the people who said if we were not in the euro that would be it, actually, what happened was it strengthened the City. It killed all the minor financial centers: Amsterdam, Vienna, Milan... We all know the euro business moved to London.'


Roger Bootle.