Let's say that Wilson wins in '70 as a POD. Could the UK set up the fabled Commonwealth FTA and then plug that into NAFTA? Perhaps only NAFTA? I can't see them withdrawing after they join.
UK doesn't join EEC, '73
- Thread starter RogueBeaver
- Start date
Eurofed
Banned
Well, as far as I know, Britain was so eager to join the EEC in the 60s and 70s precisely because they had realized that both the EFTA and the hypothetical-attempted Commonwealth FTA were dead ends that weren't able to do anything really substantial to revitalize Britain from its deep post-Imperial malaise. So I would assume that the Commonwealth FTA would remain an pipedream. There was, however, some serious potential for an Anglosphere NAFTA, since Canada and Australia were already making America their main economic and strategic partner after WWII. Anyway, India was going its own protectionist-neutralist way, and is not going to be interested, but the Anglosphere-NA FTA has some serious potential. However it requires the right kind of leaders in America and Britain to talk it into being.
Last edited:
Hendryk
Banned
The same Wilson who had submitted an application for Britain to join the EEC in 1967?
Eurofed
Banned
Perhaps a different kind of Labour or Tory leader would be needed to implement the scenario.
Were there any serious efforts post WW2 towards the so-called Commonwealth FTA or a wider Anglo FTA? If so, does anyone have any recommended reading?
Well, I think an Anglosphere one could be done, provided both parties are led by leaders other than Heath & Wilson. Perhaps Reg Maudling and Jim Callaghan? Canada requires someone other than PET at 24 Sussex. So AU-NZ-UK could be workable. Eventually if someone like Willie or Maggie becomes PM, the FTA could be plugged into NAFTA. Most Dem or GOP Presidents would accept this IMO. If Morarji Desai or NTR Rao become Indian Prime Minister and apply neoliberal economics avant l'heure to India, they could join later as well.
Enoch Powell's foreign policy views were conspiratorial and quite inappropriate for a Western head of government IMO. According to the Genocide, he claimed that the CIA ordered Mountbatten's assassination among other things. He was an isolationist above all.
Had the U.K. not joined the E.E.C. , european economical and political integration would have sped several years ahead .
Powell hated the Americans for various reasons relating to their 'late' arrival in WW2 and them eclipsing British international power (Suez was a particular sticking point of his I believe). He'd happily join the EEC just to spite America if an Anglosphere FTA was on the cards. Was a very stubborn man.
Is the same Powell who claimed that Thatcher's survival in 1990 would constitute a "UDI" from the EEC and even hinted at rejoining the Tories if she won the caucus vote and the next election?
Why would America be okay with Canada reorienting its economy away from us, and why would Canada want to?
Faeelin: That was the Canadian trade policy up to WWII and was briefly resurrected during Diefenbaker's premiership. Also the two camps in Canadian foreign policy before Trudeau were US v. Commonwealth. Diefenbaker even proposed a 15% shift in Canadian trade to Britain in 1957(then illegal under GATT and requiring a then-politically unfeasible FTA).
As I said, it would be plugged into NAFTA at a later date (or earlier, depending on which is inked first), depending on who's in power in the different countries. Any plausible US President of either party from 1960 to 1972 would likely agree, but the key is not having Wilson, Heath or Trudeau in power.
As I said, it would be plugged into NAFTA at a later date (or earlier, depending on which is inked first), depending on who's in power in the different countries. Any plausible US President of either party from 1960 to 1972 would likely agree, but the key is not having Wilson, Heath or Trudeau in power.
Yes. Powell was hardly the most predictable man. If 200 Tory MPs had come to him as PM and said join NAFTA I wouldn't put it past him to raise two fingers and sign on to the EEC. Then again that kind of fuck you attitude is precisely why he had little chance of ever becoming PM in OTL.
Eurofed
Banned
Absolutely true. Without Britain in the EEC, we can look towards to the euro and Schengen being created 10 years earlier, and military and fiscal integration and post-Lisbon political integration being implemented with them, or within the next 10 years at most. By 2010, we would have full foreign policy integration, and a fully federal setup for EU instutitions.
An interesting question is which bloc would the Nordic countries join, whether the EU or the AngloFTA. I can see reasons to go either side (although if they end up in the EU, they are not going to have the leverage to slow the federal evolution of the EU, without Britain). Ireland is almost sure to go Anglosphere for the sake of NI. It would be ASB for Spain, Portugal, Austria, Greece, Slovenia, and Croatia to go anywhere else but the EU. Czechia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria could theoretically go either way, but they are very likely to go in the EU for geopolitical and geoeconomical reasons. Dunno about Cyprus and Malta.
terence
Banned
The US agressively opposed any group or grouping of tariff protection for anyone but themselves until post-WW2.
The Imperial preference system mooted at the end of the 19th C was both inspired by US, German and French tariff protection and cocked up by successive British governments that could never agree on its full implementation. It was really killed by the US blackmailing Canada in 1935 and after WW2 who could stand against US economic hegemony?
When Atlee tried to revive the idea as Commonwealth Preference zone, the US threatened to withold Marshall Aid and cancel the US-UK Loan agreement ( there's a light hand for you!)--so we ended up with GATT.
Until two more generations of economic education the US always opposed any system that did not directly favour US interests to the detriment of others ( Can't work out that there can be two winners!).
I can't see a Commonwealth-NAFTA trade bloc existing before the 1980s as America would hardly allow Aussie beef or NZ dairy products to compete with US producers or Aussie wine to put the producers of Californian toilet cleaner out of business.
Not sure about your timeplan, but otherwise you're absolutely right: no Britain in EEC=more unification.
Considering the Nordic countries, more unification would rather keep them out. Unless the European union finds some intermediate steps as we find today, with several communities overlaying and the Nordic countries joining some, but not all.
What about defense? If Britain is closer to the US and Europe has a closer defense cooperation, maybe even a common army, what effects would that have on NATO? "Old Europe" more unified?
Agreed, you would need a big POD in the US to allow for a useful FTA to the smaller Commonwealth states. Read the negotiations or terms of some of their bilateral FTA deals sometime, especially agriculture, they are extremely tight even for close allies like Australia
Eurofed
Banned
Most likely true. However, it is quite possible that the federal core is willing to allow the Nordic countries such a partial association relationship. It would be an intergovernmental wider framework between the outer ring of associated states and the unified federal core.
Well, Old Europe would have built a fully integrated army by now. The most plausible model would be the loose equivalent of the US National Guard. All EU military units of would be under national command in normal conditions, but with full federal standardization as supplies, equipment, training, and command structure. At the decision of the EU political authority, any or all units could and would be activated under unified federal command. Simply by eliminating duplication waste, an integrated EU army would be able to become the full equivalent of the US Army, without any increase in military budgets. As it concerns the "division of labor" within the continental federal EU, the Germans would call the shots in the economic field, while the French would be top dogs in the foreign policy and military fields, with the Italians and Spanish playing sidekick to both.
As it concerns NATO relations, the USA would of course require some smooth-worded reassurance that the EU army is meant to be an element and not a substitute of NATO. Once this is achieved, they would turn very supportive, and actually relieved that the EU may now credibly share some of their global military burden. The UK would probably suffer some pangs of jealousy, its influence being squeezed between the US and EU military giants. They may possibly try to revive military links with the Dominions to build an influence block. Most likely, this ends up with ANZUS joining NATO and the Alliance getting a global dimension.
Actually this has the potential to be a rather balanced and successful integration model for the Western world, the Anglosphere and continental Europe being free to pursue their own separate choice paths to economic and political integration, but finding an upper-tier cooperation within NATO, that could easily develop a political forum dimension. Mexico and India may be willing to join the Anglo FTA, not so much the global NATO. However, Japan might easily be willing to do both (however, its deeply protectionist and aggressive exporter economy would need some serious adjustments to integrate). At this point, super-NATO would start to look like a credible substitute to the UN.
If by Nordic countries you mean Denmark , Norway and Sweden , Norway isn't even in the E.U. (it has no reason to be a member , with its oil revenues) . Sweden is already a part of the eurozone , so that's a clear indication as to where it is leaning . And Finland, though not technically a nordic country but a scandic one with a comaprably well developed economy is definitely aligned with Europe over some Anglosphere .Denmark has just redefined its (understandable) germanophobia as a reluctance to integrate fully into the E.U. apparatus . It all comes down to which bloc of countries you can sell the most Volvos and Saabs without tarrifs , and believe me , that's not the NAFTA .