Have Wilson win in '70 and Powell take over from Heath and become PM in '74,
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.
Well, this is being a little bit too general, unfortunately. Although it is true that in terms of men and material, at current military spending a combined European military would equal or even surpass the U.S. military, in terms of efficiency it would not. With current spending rates in the U.S. the military aims for roughly 2/3 to 3/4 of their military to be ready for deployment at any one time. In Europe however, even before the reccesion hit in 2007, it was estimated that in mosty countries it was the direct opposite. Less than a third or even a quarter of the military was fit for deployment. In France, for instance it was understood that only roughly a third of it's Leclerc MBT's were operational. Figures for the airfoce were similar. During the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the British military had to spend almost 3 billion pounds on simply getting all of the equipment needed for roughly 38,000 men fit for deployments. So while it is true that a unified European military could reach a similar level of men and material, it would also requier a considerable injection of cash to keep a more suitable level of operational capacity at any one time.
Russell
Well, Old Europe would have built a fully integrated army by now.
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.
I suspect he may well mean the Nordic countries; that is, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland. What Finland is not is a Scandinavian country; though it does naturally have its cultural ties to that region.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
Well, this is being a little bit too general, unfortunately. Although it is true that in terms of men and material, at current military spending a combined European military would equal or even surpass the U.S. military, in terms of efficiency it would not. With current spending rates in the U.S. the military aims for roughly 2/3 to 3/4 of their military to be ready for deployment at any one time. In Europe however, even before the reccesion hit in 2007, it was estimated that in mosty countries it was the direct opposite. Less than a third or even a quarter of the military was fit for deployment. In France, for instance it was understood that only roughly a third of it's Leclerc MBT's were operational. Figures for the airfoce were similar. During the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the British military had to spend almost 3 billion pounds on simply getting all of the equipment needed for roughly 38,000 men fit for deployments. So while it is true that a unified European military could reach a similar level of men and material, it would also requier a considerable injection of cash to keep a more suitable level of operational capacity at any one time.
Britain hasn't been particuarly helpful in developing a centalised European state (as far as i'm concerned that's only a good thing) but there is still a considerable lack of support from most people across europe - it has not only been Britain that has been, Euroskeptic but also and increasing number of continentals that have proved to be sticking points for European integration. To many, the concept of simply handing over perhaps the most potent symbol of sovereignty to European beurocrats in Brussels would be simply a step to far.
If you really want to have a unified European military by 2010 I think you would need an earlier POD. Perhaps by having say the concervatives win the 1945 election in Britain with more of an effort to create a Commonwealth/Anglosphere FTA while in Europe you could maybe work some variation of the Pleven in adoption in the early 50's.
I don't think that either the Italians or the Spanish would like to be considered sidekicks of a Franco-German centric Europe. They havn't so far.
I suspect he may well mean the Nordic countries; that is, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland. What Finland is not is a Scandinavian country; though it does naturally have its cultural ties to that region.
Incidentally, Sweden is not a part of the Eurozone, and Denmark is the Nordic country that doesn't already have the Euro that appears closest to adopting it.
Not quite. I, ah, forgot one of the Clearly Nordic countries (the other Nordic country that isn't in the EU, that is).All quite true.
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).
Although it is true that in terms of men and material, at current military spending a combined European military would equal or even surpass the U.S. military, in terms of efficiency it would not. With current spending rates in the U.S. the military aims for roughly 2/3 to 3/4 of their military to be ready for deployment at any one time. In Europe however, even before the reccesion hit in 2007, it was estimated that in mosty countries it was the direct opposite.
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.
Guys
Alternatively, as have been suggested is a revival of some form of Commonwealth Trade Zone. While not popular with protectionist blocs like the US and EU its fair from impossible and would mean far less disruption to Britain's long term trade patterns than joining the EU did.
Steve
Agreed. People of my father's generation (he is in his late 60s) in NZ appear to be pretty dammed aggrieved at Britain for the EEC membership - hit the farmers (my father being one) especially hard as well as creating practical travel problems, wrt visas and the like. I think they felt especially annoyed that non Anglo Europeans now got preference to enter when preference had previously been given to Commonwealth citizens.
Just out of interest, what was Trudeau's general position on trade/trading blocs, etc?
I don't know that much about Canadian politics, so I have absolutely no idea.
Given all that came of it, i find it hard to consider that Any New Zealander, sufficiently informed, would be less than annoyed with how that went, actually. Though if I'm remembering my history right, it did lead fairly directly to the construction of a lot of our hydro dams, then the economic reforms in the 80s...
Could have been worse.
Still, government attempts to cozy up to the USA instead haven't really helped us much, if at all, likewise china.
'course, personally, I'm still trying to figure how free trade is supposed to be a good thing when it mostly seems to result in the price of milk going up and inefficient/less sustainable use of farmland and water resources...
(I'm also trying to figure how computer games being sold at 2x what they're really worth in the USA somehow end up going for 4x what they're worth here...)
Then again, i have a whole huge list of pet rants regarding the way New Zealand is run
Not least of which is voter habits... my grandparents will vote for national, no matter how crap it is, because Labour took away the unsustainable and damaging dairy subsidies in the 80s. *headshakey*
but yeah, don't know what it would have done for Britain, or what the PoD would need to be, but i can't help but think that being the hub of a global trade network (especially if it could suck non-commonwealth nations in as some sort of ... lesser partners, or something) would have been good for Britain.
'course, i presented this idea to one of my friends as was promptly informed that the Correct path for Britain would have been to keep the commonwealth trade arrangement, AND join the European economic deally, becoming something of a gateway between the two and taking a cut of everything going through.
i find it hard to believe that would have lasted long before someone started jumping up and down about it in an unhelpful manner though.
Yeah, my father will never forgive Roger Douglas for the subsidy issue!
I would like to read a bit more about the whole issue, not just from the NZ pov if possible, but it doesn't appear to be an issue that is investigated in detail. So I don't really know how concrete the EEC alternatives were from the UK's perspective or indeed what our own position was.
Have you come across any good scholarly work on the issue?
What were the benefits of EEC membership vis-a-vis EFTA? Not knowing much about the period or organisations of the time IIRC the referendum that took the UK into membership sold the EEC as a free trade deal. I'm just wondering what the UK got out of it that they wouldn't get from how the EFTA developed?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.