![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
qatsiBook Review: Europe's Last Chance - Why the European States Must Form a More Perfect Union, by Guy Verhofstadt
It's always a bonus to discover something in the work book sale that I know is already on my to-read list. I was interested in what the author would have to say, though I have disdain for the hyperbole in the title. Most of his argument is for a more federal Europe; in that I broadly agree with him. Fortunately, it seems the French rather than the British are to blame, at least in the first instance, for their blocking in 1954 of the treaty establishing a common defence community. Verhofstadt argues this treaty would have allowed for a kind of United States of Europe, but also would have led to the development of associate status outside the core, which might have suited the UK better. But it wasn't to be, because one national government wasn't prepared to pool sovereignty, and this has happened over and over again in the intervening years, making the European project weak and less effective than it could have been. He chronicles weakness in the areas of foreign and defence policy, in the Middle East and Russia, the rise of authoritarian parties and governments, and indifferent economic progress. Whilst I broadly agree with him, I don't always find his arguments particularly convincing and I doubt they will shift anyone's position. In the chapter on how a lack of a digital single market disadvantages Europe, his choice of Airbnb and Uber as example success stories seems dubious - both companies have had a rather mixed reception and created their own set of issues. The book feels as if it is written for an American audience, and repeatedly sings the praises of both the development and structure of the constitution of the USA - which may be a fair theoretical perspective, but its implementation and practice over recent decades has hardly been exemplary. The prospect of Grexit is assigned far more writing than Brexit, which may be partly a sign of the period in which the book was prepared and written, but is also perhaps indicative of the disinterest in mainland Europe of this all-consuming issue in the UK.
It's always a bonus to discover something in the work book sale that I know is already on my to-read list. I was interested in what the author would have to say, though I have disdain for the hyperbole in the title. Most of his argument is for a more federal Europe; in that I broadly agree with him. Fortunately, it seems the French rather than the British are to blame, at least in the first instance, for their blocking in 1954 of the treaty establishing a common defence community. Verhofstadt argues this treaty would have allowed for a kind of United States of Europe, but also would have led to the development of associate status outside the core, which might have suited the UK better. But it wasn't to be, because one national government wasn't prepared to pool sovereignty, and this has happened over and over again in the intervening years, making the European project weak and less effective than it could have been. He chronicles weakness in the areas of foreign and defence policy, in the Middle East and Russia, the rise of authoritarian parties and governments, and indifferent economic progress. Whilst I broadly agree with him, I don't always find his arguments particularly convincing and I doubt they will shift anyone's position. In the chapter on how a lack of a digital single market disadvantages Europe, his choice of Airbnb and Uber as example success stories seems dubious - both companies have had a rather mixed reception and created their own set of issues. The book feels as if it is written for an American audience, and repeatedly sings the praises of both the development and structure of the constitution of the USA - which may be a fair theoretical perspective, but its implementation and practice over recent decades has hardly been exemplary. The prospect of Grexit is assigned far more writing than Brexit, which may be partly a sign of the period in which the book was prepared and written, but is also perhaps indicative of the disinterest in mainland Europe of this all-consuming issue in the UK.