They weren’t thinking very hard, then, since the Euro split the EU itself.
I gotta wonder how many Britons are kissing their pound notes and thinking they dodged a bullet.
Oh yes. Pound coins, though. Only the Scots have pound notes these days. One good thing Gordon Brown did was to prevent Blair, Mandelson et al taking us into the euro. They were all for it, the idiots. Blair’s *still *saying it might be a good idea to join :rolleyes:.
Hindsight is 20/20; five years ago it looked like Britain might be left behind economically.
It’s not really hindsight, though, is it? Most of the British right predicted that this would eventually happen.
And of course, the pro-Euro faction was rather hysterical (not in a funny way, but a neurotic way) about calling the anti-side names then, and sometimes now. But on a more serious-minded level, curency transactions aren’t quite as much trouble as they once were, and currency unions not so neccessary. With modern electronic credit, it almost doesn’t matter what currency you use. As a large corporation you want to limit your exposure to various currency-based risks, but you tend to face that anyhow in a global marketplace. In some ways, the Euro was solving the problems decades late. Was it helpful for covenience? Sure. It did helpe some people get their products out. But at the end of the day it was a marketing gimmick more than a sound financial decision.
Perhaps that might be the way backward. I’ve long held that EU fever was more a revolution of some politicians and not of the people, who frankly more or less are happy to leave one another alone.
And this might be for the best. Europe, with the never-acknowledged but very visible guarrantee of American arms, has avoided war. OK, it might have entirely been the choice of some of those states, but there ya go. But a mostly peaceful Europe with plenty of regional and national cultural differences is a prime candidate for scientific and technological advancement. new and different ideas and plans can push people in new directions.
What the hell is this supposed to mean?
Did it? As I recall, by 2006 opposition to the euro had hardened. The wobbly patch was shortly after introduction, about 1999 to 2003. At that time, there seemed to be a real possibility that we would join. I don’t think the pro-camp were motivated to join by poor relative economic performance - at the time, Britain looked like it was doing quite well economically. The pro- argument was always more idealistic and political than economic.
Anyway, as Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party says, something is not hindsight if you have been saying it all along.
Yes, I was a bit off with five years. 2002 would be more like it.
It means that post WW2 Europe didn’t really need any more war, and nobody was very tempted to try anything with the implicit threat of American military power looming over. It’s not particularly contraversial among historians.
One or the other, mate. Can’t have it both ways. Either Europeans didn’t and don’t want to kill each other any more (and/or are deterred by each other’s nuclear firecrackers) ; or America keeps turbulent Europe quiet by its watchful and heavily armed gaze like a wise big brother. That’s younger. And more violent. Look, I don’t do metaphors, OK ?
Besides, there’s the slight problem of Serbia/Croatia running right against the second theory. Seems even sustained, daily American air raids and cruise missile strikes don’t really stop us butchering each other if we’re really into it. So…yeah.
In th real world, there are and can be multiple reasons. Some people were tired of war - and after WW1&2, who can blame them. But not everyone, and the Second World War unleashed some tendencies that quite possibly would have led to new conflicts, and perhaps whole new states.
When the U.S. does get involved, the fighitng did stop. Maybe not instantaneously, but it stopped. Given that the U.S.'s strategic concerns were and are elsewhere, that was no small feat. But a certain corner of southeastern Europe is a strategic backwater. The major central European powers were the real concern here, along with keeping the Russians out.
Okay, so who are these grumpy people who might have started wars if not for the smothering benevolence of the US?
And the US solved the Yugoslav problem with Russia’s approval. Without it, the US wouldn’t have won. Had the Russians backed the Serbs, it would’ve been a total mess. Look at how the Afghans are giving NATO a run for their money without a major powr backing them.
Serbia just wasn’t interested enough. The goal to unite all the Serbs, or all the Croats under one flag is still as valid now as then. Kosovo is not settled anymore than Northern Cyrpus or Palestine has been settled. They’re just stuck with a perpetual status quo.
Yeah, it coulda turned into some kind of sequel to World War One.
Most of the British right has been predicting that the EU/EC/whatever itself would fail since about 1973, hasn’t it?
No, I don’t think that’s accurate. If anything, they have been doom-mongering about how the EU dominates, or will come to dominate, our affairs. If they thought the EU was going to collapse, presumably they wouldn’t have such concerns. Furthermore, it’s not just the “British right” who oppose the euro, and not all the people who oppose the euro also oppose the EU.
For benefit of ignorant colonials, could you please explain the differences between the reasons a Brit might oppose the euro, and the reasons a Brit might oppose the EU?
Oh, the French, the Germans, the Spanish, the Italians, any number of Balkan groups…
I don’t deny that, as per AndyLee’s point, that Russia also preferred (wary, backstabbity) peace to (open) war.
Anti-EU people complain that Britain has ceded sovereignty to the EU, that the EU is not democratic, that back in 1975 we only actually voted for a common trade area, etc. Some of them sound like nut-jobs to me, but they have a point with the lack of democracy thing. The European parliament is a joke, just a talking shop. EU power rests with the Commission, who are appointed through mysterious channels rather than elected.
Other objections to the EU are that it is essentially protectionist and wasteful, the infamous Common Agricultural Policy being a case in point.
Objections to the euro are a bit simpler. From an economics 101 perspective, it has always been difficult to see how such different countries could share a common currency. And there was opposition from the left, too, although you’d have to ask one of them what the nature of their opposition was.