Somebody yanked on the leash? Errrr... lead?

/English to American...

It sure is quiet in here

Imo, Cameron is just posturing. If the whole shiathouse doesn't go up in flames anytime soon, I expect the UK to sign on.

The UK has accepted an invitation from the European Council to join talks, alongside 17 eurozone and nine other EU states considering signing up.

Looks more like europe knows it can't do without the UK.

goatan: The UK has accepted an invitation from the European Council to join talks, alongside 17 eurozone and nine other EU states considering signing up.

Looks more like europe knows it can't do without the UK.

lulz.

what in the article made you come to this conclusion?

goatan: The UK has accepted an invitation from the European Council to join talks, alongside 17 eurozone and nine other EU states considering signing up.

Looks more like europe knows it can't do without the UK.

This.

I do not know why people are surprised. The UK has always been very different in most respects than continental Europe and that is to their benefit. They are European by Geographic location, not so much culture, economics and politics . The have more in common with the US which is 3000 miles away than mainland Europe which is only 21 miles.

I always figured the most ideal trade alliance would be the US, UK, Japan, Singapore, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

MisterRonbo: hasty ambush: goatan: The UK has accepted an invitation from the European Council to join talks, alongside 17 eurozone and nine other EU states considering signing up.

Looks more like europe knows it can't do without the UK.

This.

I do not know why people are surprised. The UK has always been very different in most respects than continental Europe and that is to their benefit. They are European by Geographic location, not so much culture, economics and politics . The have more in common with the US which is 3000 miles away than mainland Europe which is only 21 miles.

I always figured the most ideal trade alliance would be the US, UK, Japan, Singapore, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

You're thinking culture. Its the economy, stupid. Who do you think the UK does more trade with, ANZUS or the continent that's right next door?

That is all changeable, particularly if the Euro crashes and burns

hasty ambush: goatan: The UK has accepted an invitation from the European Council to join talks, alongside 17 eurozone and nine other EU states considering signing up.

Looks more like europe knows it can't do without the UK.

This.

I do not know why people are surprised. The UK has always been very different in most respects than continental Europe and that is to their benefit. They are European by Geographic location, not so much culture, economics and politics . The have more in common with the US which is 3000 miles away than mainland Europe which is only 21 miles.

I always figured the most ideal trade alliance would be the US, UK, Japan, Singapore, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Not South Korea?

The British have endeavored to foment division on the continent for hundreds of years - a squabbling Europe is always in the British interest, and has helped Britain avoid conqest for almost 1,000 years. Today, Britain enjoys the most sophisticated financial center on the planet, a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and a modest but potent arsenal of atomic weapons deliverable anywhere on Earth via SLBM. Why would they give up all that to be subjugated by a quasi-democratic central government in Brussels? They won't. They also will not join a flawed currency union nor subject themselves to draconian controls from Brussels designed - poorly - to save that flawed union partly on the backs of EU member states which are not members of that currency union. They'd be fools to do so, not least because the current Franco-German proposals are insufficient to save EZ and amount to wrong-headed deflationary policies reminiscent of the mistakes made duriing the Great Depression.

No doubt the British will be more than happy to join these talks as observers simply to keep track of the latest bad ideas coming out of Brussels - forewarned is forearmed, and all that. It's not very likely the Franco-German proposal of last week will ever become a reality in any event, as the legal and political hurdles are formidable, and at least two nations have already stated their unwillingness to relinquish control over taxation and other sovereign fiscal matters. One wonders how long it will be before other countries - particularly those in Southern Europe already groaning under imposed and counter-productive austerity regimes - will conclude that this Eurozone business was a mistake.

hasty ambush: I always figured the most ideal trade alliance would be the US, UK, Japan, Singapore, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Or to put it another way:

The most ideal trade alliance would be British colony, Britain, small island nation with many similarities to Britain*, British colony, British colony, British colony and British colony.

It's almost as if there's a common theme in British culture that makes people good traders.

* Feudal society that migrated to parliamentary democracy.
* Similar population to large continent nearby but view themselves as quite different.
* Beer drinking culture.
* Sense of honour and fair play.
* History of war crimes.
* Neither takes religion too serious.

canyoneer: The British have endeavored to foment division on the continent for hundreds of years - a squabbling Europe is always in the British interest, and has helped Britain avoid conqest for almost 1,000 years. Today, Britain enjoys the most sophisticated financial center on the planet, a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and a modest but potent arsenal of atomic weapons deliverable anywhere on Earth via SLBM. Why would they give up all that to be subjugated by a quasi-democratic central government in Brussels? They won't.

What the hell does their membership or lack thereof in a currency union have to do with their UN seat or their nuclear arsenal? France has more nukes than the UK and a permanent security council seat.

And they already are influenced by Brussels since they are part of the EU. If they were in the Eurozone the influence they would have to suffer would be from Frankfurt where the ECB is.

The traditional British policy of keeping Europe divided only made sense when Britain had a Empire. The point of it was to prevent the rise of a power that could rival British imperial ambitions. Without the empire, that policy makes no sense, in fact it's genuinely counter productive to British interests. Unfortunately British conservatives like to live in the past and haven't quite grasped this point yet.

lilplatinum: What the hell does their membership or lack thereof in a currency union have to do with their UN seat or their nuclear arsenal? France has more nukes than the UK and a permanent security council seat. And they already are influenced by Brussels since they are part of the EU. If they were in the Eurozone the influence they would have to suffer would be from Frankfurt where the ECB is.

I don't know if you're following current events, but the proposal the British recently declined to endorse was that ALL EU states must submit to centralized fiscal controls, regulations, and standards, even if they are not in the EZ. Since the British vetoed this proposal, it must be a treaty outside the framework of EU treaties, yet the French and Germans still insist it will be implemented using EU institutions (probably illegal). Why would the British submit their financial industry - which does business all over the world, not just with EZ states - to quasi-legal, quasi-EU regulation and taxation that is designed (poorly) to save a dysfunctional currency union of which they are not part?

All of this dithering and byzantine impotence merely confirms the wisdom of Britain's keeping her distance from too much legal and political integration with the continent. If you imagine this is just some Anglo-Saxon perspective on the matter, consider this analysis from Der Spiegel, which makes it clear that even if this proposed non-EU treaty can be made legally binding on EU members who do not participate (which is doubtful), it is highly unlikely to be legal under the German and other national constitutions.

Link (new window)

I can understand the UKs position on this. The people who should only be beholden to the fiscal measures are the countries that hold the Euro as their currency. With the British Pound the UK has some wiggleroom to deal with the fiscal crisis where the Euro countries do not. I think it is a good thing that the UK has joined the base talks just so they can let the other countries know what they are doing for themselves and for the Euro countries to let a strong trading partner know what they are planing on doing. This should stick with being a Euro thing not an EU thing.

What seems to escape the Europeans is that to become a viable and credible economic/political bloc, Europe must embrace outright federation. That is, the surrender of national sovereignty altogether - the United States of Europe, in effect. The current proposal is all stick and no carrot: Austerity is imposed on underperforming economies without any benefit of fiscal transfers from the wealthier, more efficient states to the poorer, less efficient states (like in the U.S., where, in effect, California and New York subsidize Alabama and Arkansas in the interest of efficiencies which benefit all the states). Currently, and under the Franco-German proposal, there is no real central bank, no fiscal union, and no transfer payments, meaning the economic and fiscal distortions will not be solved. Since these distortions are the proximate cause of the European debt crisis, the solution on offer is no solution, and merely confirms that political leadership in Europe in these matters is not credible. Each nation would have to alter its constitution and submit to the primacy of a central, directly-elected European government. It seems very, very unlikely that this will ever occur.

In any event, one doubts that the British would sign on to a true federation with Europe under any circumstances, so a lot of this brouhaha over British intrasigence is moot.

canyoneer: I don't know if you're following current events, but the proposal the British recently declined to endorse was that ALL EU states must submit to centralized fiscal controls, regulations, and standards, even if they are not in the EZ. Since the British vetoed this proposal, it must be a treaty outside the framework of EU treaties, yet the French and Germans still insist it will be implemented using EU institutions (probably illegal). Why would the British submit their financial industry - which does business all over the world, not just with EZ states - to quasi-legal, quasi-EU regulation and taxation that is designed (poorly) to save a dysfunctional currency union of which they are not part?

None of this explains what the hell you are on about with nuclear weapons and UN seats...

lilplatinum: None of this explains what the hell you are on about with nuclear weapons and UN seats...

Because the real solution is outright federation, and one presumes that would have to entail a central European diplomatic/military apparatus under which there would be no French or British atomic bombs, but European ones over which the British would have no more control than Nebraska does over American atomic bombs. Capiche?

canyoneer: All of this dithering and byzantine impotence merely confirms the wisdom of Britain's keeping her distance from too much legal and political integration with the continent. If you imagine this is just some Anglo-Saxon perspective on the matter, consider this analysis from Der Spiegel, which makes it clear that even if this proposed non-EU treaty can be made legally binding on EU members who do not participate (which is doubtful), it is highly unlikely to be legal under the German and other national constitutions.

And incidentally the treaty itself would not be against the German Grundgesetz, but the treaty would have to be done through the Bundestag which would mean it wouldn't be happening anytime soon thanks to the farking Greens who snuck in from the post fukushima nuclear panic

canyoneer: Because the real solution is outright federation, and one presumes that would have to entail a central European diplomatic/military apparatus under which there would be no French or British atomic bombs, but European ones over which the British would have no more control than Nebraska does over American atomic bombs. Capiche?

You could make a financial federation without giving up all national sovereignty whatsoever.

Im unsure on what you mean above that in the current system there is no economic transfer from the stronger to weaker states, germany dumped plenty of my tax euros into those quasi third world shiatholes. Half of Dublin is littered with "paid for by the EU" signs on public works...

The current system is certainly a mess, but complete and utter federation (which would never happen) is not the only solution.

lilplatinum: You could make a financial federation without giving up all national sovereignty whatsoever. Im unsure on what you mean above that in the current system there is no economic transfer from the stronger to weaker states, germany dumped plenty of my tax euros into those quasi third world shiatholes. Half of Dublin is littered with "paid for by the EU" signs on public works...The current system is certainly a mess, but complete and utter federation (which would never happen) is not the only solution.

The Europeans have been trying to have their cake and eat it too on this matter for decades now, and the result is a dog's breakfast of EU/EZ/Schengen/non-Schengen/etcetera states and a currency union that obviously doesn't work. Ad hoc projects in this or that country are not the same as actual interstate transfer payments, a real central bank, and a real central government, and the result is plain for everyone to see. And what is the response? Hooverite solutions of questionable legality that were proven counter-productive 80 years ago and a European banking system running on fumes. Eventually something's going to give, and it won't be pretty.

As an aside, it seems people and governments will just never figure it out. The time to cut government spending is during good economic times, not bad economic times. But of course, when the dough is pouring in, political parties want to hand out goodies to their supporters, so everything goes belly-up when times get tough and the bottom drops out. Human nature, I guess.

Oh, and lilplatinum: Can you provide an example of a currency union without political union which was successful in the past?

So... not joining, but taking part in the talks?

I see the UK as not so much a 'part' of Europe, but an unpaid unwelcome consultant at a business meeting.

A Kramer, if you will.

From Yes Minister: Episode Five: The Writing on the Wall

Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?
Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?
Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.
Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal?
Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister.
Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.
Hacker: What appalling cynicism.
Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.

Weird that a nation with Britain's maritime history would be so eager to swim to the sinking ship.

You'd think not doing that is something beaten in to them at a young age.

MisterRonbo: hasty ambush


Who do you think the UK does more trade with, ANZUS or the continent that's right next door?


That is all changeable, particularly if the Euro crashes and burns


And what do you base this notion on? Prior to the euro they still did far, far more trade with the continent. Because its right next door, because regulations are harmonized. If the Euro as a currency disappears, then the advantage of no exchange rate is lost, but that doesn't create some huge trade barrier or give other countries some advantage.

Do you think it will suddenly be cheaper to ship in meat and vegetables from New Zealand than France?

Do you think Brits will suddenly buy American clothes in bigger numbers because their tastes will magically change?

Then there are cars - Ford and GM products sold in the UK are manufactured there, so they aren't going to suddenly start buying LHD cars exported from Detroit, or Holdens manufactured in Perth.

You went from a silly "they have more in common" argument that never trumped economics in the past, to no argument at all. If you're going to discuss an economy, come up with something other than "they have more in common (culturally)", because that doesn't cut it. We have more in common with the UK than with China, guess which one we do more trade with.

Nothing silly about when you consider the history of UK trade . The British Empire was not founded close to home.

What is silly is getting into a permanent alliance of any type with France because they will never be satisfied unless they control the thing.

He faced criticism from Labour's Ed Miliband that by doing so he had "given up our seat at the table" and with it, the chance to secure the best deal for Britain.

Just what does "the best deal" in a suicide pact look like?

jjorsett: He faced criticism from Labour's Ed Miliband that by doing so he had "given up our seat at the table" and with it, the chance to secure the best deal for Britain.

Just what does "the best deal" in a suicide pact look like?

Going first, I'd imagine.

Bad_Seed: The traditional British policy of keeping Europe divided only made sense when Britain had a Empire. The point of it was to prevent the rise of a power that could rival British imperial ambitions. Without the empire, that policy makes no sense, in fact it's genuinely counter productive to British interests. Unfortunately British conservatives like to live in the past and haven't quite grasped this point yet.

The point of it was to prevent the rise of a power that could successfully invade the British Isles. Everything else is secondary.

British strategy for the last few hundred years was to keep the various countries of Europe at each other's throats using big , giant expensive , LAND-BASED armies instead of equally expensive sea-based navies, while Britain hid behind their navy and occasionally intervened using minimal force to prevent unification (see Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII). A united Europe vs Britain is no contest. A relatively even war (or very angry peace) between 2 European countries with Britain playing both sides against each other and occasionally acting as the thumb on the scales is advantage Britain. The empire just naturally grew out of the huge navy, massive merchant fleets, beautiful strategic position, and need for resources.

/A surprising amount of what I just said about Britain and Europe can be extended to US and the world.

meyerkev: Bad_Seed: The traditional British policy of keeping Europe divided only made sense when Britain had a Empire. The point of it was to prevent the rise of a power that could rival British imperial ambitions. Without the empire, that policy makes no sense, in fact it's genuinely counter productive to British interests. Unfortunately British conservatives like to live in the past and haven't quite grasped this point yet.

The point of it was to prevent the rise of a power that could successfully invade the British Isles. Everything else is secondary.

British strategy for the last few hundred years was to keep the various countries of Europe at each other's throats using big , giant expensive , LAND-BASED armies instead of equally expensive sea-based navies, while Britain hid behind their navy and occasionally intervened using minimal force to prevent unification (see Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII). A united Europe vs Britain is no contest. A relatively even war (or very angry peace) between 2 European countries with Britain playing both sides against each other and occasionally acting as the thumb on the scales is advantage Britain. The empire just naturally grew out of the huge navy, massive merchant fleets, beautiful strategic position, and need for resources.

/A surprising amount of what I just said about Britain and Europe can be extended to US and the world.

That's one of the stupidest things I've read lately. The last sentence betrays the source of your stupidity.

EU: We have a debt crisis.
UK: What do you mean "we", paleface?
EU: We need to prop up the Euro
UK: You do remember we aren't part of that fiasco, right?
EU: We're all in this together!
UK: No, seriously. We stayed out of the Euro for exactly this reason.
EU: We need to raise money to solve the debt crisis.
UK: Sounds smart
EU: We're going to add a tax to an industry
UK: Sounds smart
EU: Everyone must now tax financial transactions! Including you!
UK: Uh, that's a major industry for us, and a minor industry for everyone else
EU: Everyone!
UK: How about no?
EU: The UK is ANTI EUROPE!

Xaneidolon: Imo, Cameron is just posturing. If the whole shiathouse doesn't go up in flames anytime soon, I expect the UK to sign on.

Cameron was always posturing. When you look at the hard data anyone with half a brain can easily conclude that pulling out of the Eurozone will push the UK into a major recession.

The political brinkmanship here is basically to placate his own xenophobic rightie back bench as well as try to force concessions that will obviously be economically beneficial to the UK.

Anyway, the end result is going to be exactly what I said it was going to be months ago. Stronger financial regulation from Brussels and more power for the EU to decide fiscal policy in member nations.

TwistedFark: Xaneidolon: Imo, Cameron is just posturing. If the whole shiathouse doesn't go up in flames anytime soon, I expect the UK to sign on.

Cameron was always posturing. When you look at the hard data anyone with half a brain can easily conclude that pulling out of the Eurozone will push the UK into a major recession.

The political brinkmanship here is basically to placate his own xenophobic rightie back bench as well as try to force concessions that will obviously be economically beneficial to the UK.

Anyway, the end result is going to be exactly what I said it was going to be months ago. Stronger financial regulation from Brussels and more power for the EU to decide fiscal policy in member nations.

And if the Euro zone goes tits up anyway who goes with it?

The UK's interests would best be served by not tying itself to closely or being too dependent upon Europe. It should be strengthening and developing its trade and economic ties elsewhere weening itself off Europe. dependence.

The Eurozone is too much like the US under the Articles of confederation and I do not see all the member states giving up enough sovereignty to form not only a unified economic system but also a unified defense and foreign policy system that would also be required. It would also be , in effect, ceding sovereignty to the French and Germans.

canyoneer: Oh, and lilplatinum: Can you provide an example of a currency union without political union which was successful in the past?

East Carribean dollar, Singapore/Brunai formal currency union.

Its a rather moden innovation so naturally the historical precedent is fairly small.