What do you think?
Rate this book
The Response to: GATT and Global Free Trade
1 NEW SOFTCOVER BOOK
- GenresNonfiction
216 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
1 person is currently reading
52 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 8, 2025
James Goldsmith’s The Response (1995) serves as a succinct and assertive follow-up to his earlier polemic, The Trap (1994). Written during a moment of mounting disillusionment with the European project and intensifying global economic integration, The Response articulates a populist and nationalist rejoinder to what Goldsmith saw as the betrayal of democratic sovereignty by transnational elites and technocratic governance. Although relatively brief and rhetorically charged, the book is an important document in the history of late 20th-century Euroscepticism and economic nationalism.
Framed as a manifesto for the Referendum Party—which Goldsmith founded to oppose Britain’s further integration into the European Union—The Response represents a crystallization of his political platform. The book argues that the centralization of power in Brussels undermines national self-government, distorts democratic accountability, and threatens the cultural and institutional distinctiveness of individual European states. Goldsmith positions the European Union not as a democratic federation of sovereign nations, but as a bureaucratic superstate operating beyond meaningful public consent.
At the heart of The Response is Goldsmith’s critique of the Maastricht Treaty (1992), which he views as emblematic of a stealthy process of constitutional revolution undertaken without direct popular mandate. He asserts that economic and monetary union—particularly the planned adoption of a single currency—would not only strip states of their economic tools (such as control over interest rates, fiscal policy, and currency devaluation) but would also require deep political centralization to sustain. In Goldsmith’s view, this centralization would necessarily come at the cost of national democracy.
The book also revisits and extends the arguments first articulated in The Trap, especially regarding globalization and the decline of representative democracy. Goldsmith warns that both EU integration and global economic liberalization serve the interests of transnational corporations and financial elites, not the broader citizenry. These processes, he claims, generate economic instability, exacerbate inequality, and erode the moral basis of the nation-state as a political community grounded in shared obligations and identity.
Goldsmith’s writing style is unambiguously combative. He draws on a populist register to denounce the “political class,” the “establishment press,” and supranational technocrats, whom he sees as arrogating power while ignoring the popular will. This rhetoric, while powerful, sometimes veers into overgeneralization and lacks the empirical substantiation typical of more academic analyses. Yet this very directness was part of the book’s political impact at the time—it was not written for academic audiences but for a politically disenchanted public seeking clarity and conviction.
From an academic perspective, The Response is noteworthy for anticipating many of the concerns that would later animate Brexit discourse. It articulates a coherent—if controversial—vision of democratic self-determination rooted in national sovereignty. In this sense, Goldsmith’s work deserves scholarly attention as an early precursor to the broader populist and anti-globalist movements that would reshape Western politics in the early 21st century.
Critically, however, the book has limitations. Its policy proposals are often vague, and its solutions to complex political-economic problems are framed in largely binary terms: sovereignty versus integration, democracy versus bureaucracy, people versus elites. Moreover, Goldsmith’s romanticized conception of the nation-state does not fully grapple with the practical challenges of interdependence in a globalized world—particularly in areas such as environmental policy, trade regulation, and migration.
The Response is a significant political tract that captured a turning point in European and British politics. It represents not merely a reactionary backlash but a coherent worldview—one that foregrounds questions of political legitimacy, identity, and democratic representation in an era increasingly defined by technocratic governance and economic globalization. For scholars of European integration, political populism, and the ideological roots of Brexit, Goldsmith’s The Response is an essential primary source that merits critical engagement.
GPT
Framed as a manifesto for the Referendum Party—which Goldsmith founded to oppose Britain’s further integration into the European Union—The Response represents a crystallization of his political platform. The book argues that the centralization of power in Brussels undermines national self-government, distorts democratic accountability, and threatens the cultural and institutional distinctiveness of individual European states. Goldsmith positions the European Union not as a democratic federation of sovereign nations, but as a bureaucratic superstate operating beyond meaningful public consent.
At the heart of The Response is Goldsmith’s critique of the Maastricht Treaty (1992), which he views as emblematic of a stealthy process of constitutional revolution undertaken without direct popular mandate. He asserts that economic and monetary union—particularly the planned adoption of a single currency—would not only strip states of their economic tools (such as control over interest rates, fiscal policy, and currency devaluation) but would also require deep political centralization to sustain. In Goldsmith’s view, this centralization would necessarily come at the cost of national democracy.
The book also revisits and extends the arguments first articulated in The Trap, especially regarding globalization and the decline of representative democracy. Goldsmith warns that both EU integration and global economic liberalization serve the interests of transnational corporations and financial elites, not the broader citizenry. These processes, he claims, generate economic instability, exacerbate inequality, and erode the moral basis of the nation-state as a political community grounded in shared obligations and identity.
Goldsmith’s writing style is unambiguously combative. He draws on a populist register to denounce the “political class,” the “establishment press,” and supranational technocrats, whom he sees as arrogating power while ignoring the popular will. This rhetoric, while powerful, sometimes veers into overgeneralization and lacks the empirical substantiation typical of more academic analyses. Yet this very directness was part of the book’s political impact at the time—it was not written for academic audiences but for a politically disenchanted public seeking clarity and conviction.
From an academic perspective, The Response is noteworthy for anticipating many of the concerns that would later animate Brexit discourse. It articulates a coherent—if controversial—vision of democratic self-determination rooted in national sovereignty. In this sense, Goldsmith’s work deserves scholarly attention as an early precursor to the broader populist and anti-globalist movements that would reshape Western politics in the early 21st century.
Critically, however, the book has limitations. Its policy proposals are often vague, and its solutions to complex political-economic problems are framed in largely binary terms: sovereignty versus integration, democracy versus bureaucracy, people versus elites. Moreover, Goldsmith’s romanticized conception of the nation-state does not fully grapple with the practical challenges of interdependence in a globalized world—particularly in areas such as environmental policy, trade regulation, and migration.
The Response is a significant political tract that captured a turning point in European and British politics. It represents not merely a reactionary backlash but a coherent worldview—one that foregrounds questions of political legitimacy, identity, and democratic representation in an era increasingly defined by technocratic governance and economic globalization. For scholars of European integration, political populism, and the ideological roots of Brexit, Goldsmith’s The Response is an essential primary source that merits critical engagement.
GPT
Read
December 12, 2009THIS GUY CALLS THE 2007 COLLAPSE IN 94
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews