Grin report
In October 2005, François Grin published the Grin Report, a comprehensive dossier in which he analyzes the language policy of the European Union . The study was requested and published by the High Council for the Assessment of the Education System ( French Haut Conseil de l'évaluation de l'école ).
The report
The report asks the question: “What would be the optimal choice for working languages in the European Union?” The Swiss economist suggests a comparison between three possible scenarios:
- English as the only language;
- Multilingualism (in this respect also a passive one, with a focus on the three largest EU languages German , French and English);
- The choice of Esperanto as the internal working language of the EU institutions.
Completion of the report
The third option, Esperanto , appears to be the cheapest and most effective solution for equality, but Grin currently considers it impossible due to the strong prejudices against Esperanto, which are simply based on ignorance. Nevertheless, he thinks it is strategically possible for a new generation, under two conditions:
- a comprehensive, permanent information campaign across the EU on linguistic disadvantage and Esperanto.
- Participation of all member states in the campaign.
This could save the EU 25 billion euros net annually. "85% of the EU population has a direct and obvious interest in this," Grin is convinced.
One conclusion is that with the current predominance of the English language, the UK is earning € 17-18 billion annually, three times the so-called " UK discount " or 1% of UK GDP. In other words, the 394 million non-native speakers of the EU subsidize the UK economy every year.
This amount comes from the sale of books, other English language related products, and the 700,000 people who visit England annually to learn the language; and also from the savings from neglecting foreign language teaching in British schools. It is not about the entirety of the economic transfer payments to the United Kingdom for linguistic reasons. Rather, it is about the 75% of those transfer payments that the author regards as the fruit of the general predominance of English. He attributes the rest to the demographic weight of the language itself.