Wynne Godley was a professional oboe player for some years in his twenties; in his thirties he joined the Treasury, where he reached the rank of Under-Secretary; in 1970 he became a fellow of King’s College, Cambridge and, later, was appointed director of the Department of Applied Economics. He now lives in the US and is writing an autobiography and a treatise on macro-economics.
RELATED ARTICLES
27 February 1992
Talking about Northern Ireland
24 October 1991
Homage to Wilson and Callaghan
24 November 1988
Draining the Think Tank
23 October 1986
Did more mean worse?
19 December 1985
Diary
20 December 1984
1966 and all that
5 November 1981
North Sea Fortune
RELATED CATEGORIES
Europe, Politics and economics, Political systems, Politics and economics, Economic theory, 1900-1999, 1946-1999, 1970-1979, Europe, Western Europe, UK
Vol. 1 No. 1 · 25 October 1979
pages 19-20 | 1715 words
Wynne Godley asks if Britain will have to withdraw from Europe
The implications for Britain of EEC membership are rapidly becoming so perversely disadvantageous that either a major change in existing arrangements must be made or we shall have, somehow, to withdraw.
You are not Logged In
- If you have already registered login here
- If you are a print subscriber using the site for the first time please register here
- If you are not yet a subscriber you can subscribe here
- If you are a member of a subscribing institution or University library please login here
- If you have an Institutional print subscription and online access is not included, find out about our Institutional online subscriptions
[*] For a careful analysis see Fetherston, Moore and Rhodes in the forthcoming Cambridge Journal of Economics.
This article is also available for purchase from the London Review Bookshop. Contact us for rights and issues enquiries.
- print this article
Letters
Vol. 1 No. 4 · 6 December 1979
From C.J.M. Hardie
SIR: Wynne Godley claims in your first issue that ‘if we were not members of the EEC we could avoid gratuitous transfers abroad, with a large direct benefit to the taxpayer.’ It is quite true that if we stopped paying out money to Continental farmers, we could, in principle, cut our domestic taxes. But one of the main points in Mr Godley’s article is that farmers in Britain are going to be squeezed by the strength of sterling just as industrialists are, but that under EEC rules we cannot help them with subsidies. He cannot have it both ways. If we leave the EEC, we can give increased subsidies to our farmers. But to do that, we will have to use the money which we have saved by no longer subscribing to the Common Agricultural Policy. The taxpayer will simply have moved from subsidising French farmers to subsidising British ones. That may be a much more congenial duty, but it doesn’t look much like a ‘large direct benefit’.
C.J.M. Hardie
London EC2
Vol. 1 No. 5 · 20 December 1979
From Wynne Godley
SIR: The answer to Mr Hardie (LRB, Vo1. 1, No 4) is that for any given level of our own farmers’ real income the taxpayer would obtain a large direct benefit if Britain were not a member of the EEC. The point in the article to which Mr Hardie refers was that if sterling were to become very strong our own agriculture could, under EEC rules, be ruined, and we would have no power to prevent this, although we would still have to pay large net transfers to the EEC Budget. As non-members, the Government could always ruin British farmers if it chose to, but at least it would not have to subsidise foreign farmers while doing so. In practice I take it as axiomatic that the Government will, for a variety of reasons, wish to keep the British farming industry in existence, and that this is a very proper use of its tax revenue. My contention (to reiterate) has been that there is no justification for using tax revenue for the support of foreign agriculture as well.
Wynne Godley
Department of Applied Economics, University of Cambridge
