Times+ for £5

The British have been traditionally wary of such grand and glorious projects. As a nation of shopkeepers we are more swayed by commercial considerations. But is the EU good for Britain economically? That is highly debatable, although it isn’t much debated.

According to Malcolm Pearson, the Eurosceptic peer, the government has steadfastly refused to carry out any cost-benefit analysis. Of course there would be very obvious commercial advantages to a single market and a single currency, if it were truly a free market, if its monetary arrangements worked and if one ignores the steep political cost. But the economic cost of the present EU may be extremely steep as well, even outside the eurozone.

The cost to Britain could be the equivalent of the UK economy remaining stagnant for eight years, according to Philip Booth of the Institute of Economic Affairs. The IEA has just put out a book by Patrick Minford of Cardiff Business School (and others) which suggests that the total annual cost of EU membership to the UK could rise to 20% of GDP if the EU continues with its current economic policies, a tendency likely to be reinforced by the proposed constitution.

Most Britons accept that the common agricultural policy is a disaster. Quite apart from being unjust, particularly to developing countries, corrupt, absurd and thoroughly discredited, it roughly doubles food prices here. What is less well known, Minford argues, is that EU protectionism raises manufacturing prices by a similar amount. He argues in great detail that the economic costs of membership immensely outweigh the benefits.

One does not need to be an economist to understand what clearly must be commercially bad for Britain about the EU’s protectionist, statist mentality. The working time directive is a perfect paradigm. Britain’s opt-out from the EU restriction of the working week to a maximum of 48 hours is now under threat. MEPs recently voted against it and Blair will have to struggle to save it. If he fails, the cost to employers, employees and the economy will be very great.

Superficially it might seem that 48 hours is a long working week and nobody wants to condone sweated labour. However, the facts suggest something different. British workers have plenty of workplace rights and a minimum wage. Many workers need and want to work longer hours — there is good research evidence from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development that three-quarters of those in Britain who work more than the EU maximum do so out of choice. And two-thirds of those who put in very long hours are professionals or managers, not the poor huddled masses, and their high reward work is much less stressful than McJobs.

Besides, if there is exploitation here that is unacceptable here, our government can deal with it locally in its own way — by putting up the minimum wage, for instance. Why should the EU intervene at all? Why do Eurocrats talk of subsidiarity, devolution and diversity when what they mean is micromanagement, centralism, protectionism and a deep fear of free markets and globalisation? This raises the real question about European union. Can Europe forget its fear of the wider world and the future and become a wider, freer, looser new Europe? If not, European union is doomed.