In reply to an article found on ‘Nosemonkey’s EUtopia‘ (personally, I think the content is much better than the name makes you think). The question is whether or not it is possible to make a cost/benefit analysis of European Union membership. While neither of us has offered insights that give an actual comprehensive answer, the topic is interesting for several reasons: (1) The debate about paying for the EU is defined in terminology that speaks of either loosing or gaining money from the EU on the basis of simple mathematics, namely hand-outs minus contributions; (2) Imports and exports to and from the European Union ‘suffer’ from the so called ‘Rotterdam-effect’, about which you can read Nosemonkey’s contribution here; (3) The European Union wants to increase its own budget, and meets reluctant member states. In order to legitimitize this demand, a profounder insight into the benefits might be helpful (if they were to turn out positive for Brussels’ institutions).

I saw that article, but I do not agree with your assessment. Of course as the UK is an EU member, we can’t make a direct comparison and then weigh the benefits. There are plenty of other opportunities to explore its usefulness though.

Norway is not an EU member, but it has close affiliations, as has for instance Turkey. There are numbers and figures that can be used in comparisons, even if we shouldn’t attach too much weight to our interpretations of them. Likewise with young EU members and those that are currently lining up. There is a possibility of monitoring the changes, and then there is the persuasive claim that they’re not going to join us just for the sake of it.

The U.K. is a developed country, so it will always remain difficult to compare it to such states, if we even can at all. But we should differentiate between a broader view of the EU that we want to use to see if there is (1) a possible extra financial effect of EU membership that goes beyond the question of the national contribution debate and (2) what that means for each country in particular. With London being the financial centre of this continent, I am only inclined to believe it has more to profit than any other city, but again that is persuasive at sight and therefore not a strong argument.

An argument that ‘we cannot know all aspects of an economy’ is true, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. The way you present your argument about the causal effects of particular EU laws is one step too far from my perspective. ‘Sciences’ such as economics, politics and sociology should all be about ‘mapping relations’ and defining actors in a given network. That is an enormous task if you want to set out to do it with laws etc, but it is the only way to see what differences they make. Much the same needs to be done when the financial relations between the EU and UK are under investigation. The only reason why the Rotterdam-effect takes place is because we allow it to be there, because we cannot explore the connections of the network any further.