UK doesn't join EEC, '73

Cheap food continues to come from the Commonwealth, eventual break down of trading bloc with Commonwealth and establishment within US based trading bloc if wise and if not an even more costly entry to the EU.
 
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.

Eurofed, I think you overplay both the importance that both Britain has played in European politics and the desire for the European people to unite into a single nation.

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.

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 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.

Russell
 
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
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
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.

You raise a valid point. However, from what I read on the issue, a great deal of the efficienty woes you quote come from the fact that the Euro militaries are still half-way (to be generous) in the transition from the Cold War territorial defense model, to the PCW global projection peace-enforcing and regional war model, whereas the US Army all but completed the transition (although it is still far from optimal about adapting to the new tasks, as Iraq and Afghanistan indicate). Therefore, I am led to believe that a great deal of the expenses you mention could be financed in an integtrated EU army by cutting the waste created by national duplication, and by leftover resources assigned to territorial defense.
 

Eurofed

Banned
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.

Well, of course Britain is not the only EU country with Euroskeptics. However, I note that according to the results of the national and European elections in the last three decades, Britain, Czechia, and Poland are the only countries where the staunch Euroskeptic parties ever looked like they had a credible chance of getting the plurality or majority. And Denmark is perhaps the only other country where they are in the position to influence national politics substantially. Please don't quote referendums on me, their outcome is generally shaped by populist moral panics about globalization or vented-up outrage about the current national government that have nothing to do with Europe. And as recent history shows, Czech, Polish, and Danish Euroskeptics are generally less willing and able to stalemate the process in the end. I also find the implication that "increasing numbers of continentals" are turning Euroskeptic quite questionable. It is simply not so, both according to Eurobarometer polls and to electoral returns.

Reviewing the history of the last 30 years' European integration, one may notice the consistent pattern of Britain laying down critical vetoes or being the rallying point for the Euroskeptic doubts and resistance of other countries, that slowed down the progress of integration at key moments substantially. Without such actions, those vetoes would have not existed, and it is wholly likely that those doubts and resistance would not have found a critical mass.

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.

Well, of course everything would have turned smooth as silk if the European Defense Community had been accepted by the French in the 50s. About this, one of my preferred PoDs is a Communist takeover in East Austria in 1950, which not only paves the way for West Grossdeutchsland, but scares the French into accepting the EDC.

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 did not mean to sound demeaning or dismissive about Italo-Spanish contribution to the EU. I was trying to simplify a more complex idea about national elites' specializations and division of labor within the EU institutions. :eek:

Let's try it again: in a continental federal EU, we would most likely see the Germans pick the unofficial leadership of the economic sphere, and the French the one of the foreign policy and military spheres, even there would be considerable overlap, with the Italians, the Spaniards, and the Dutch playing second-best but still substantial roles in both, with perhaps the Italians leaning more towards the economic field, the Spanish towards the diplomatic-military field, and the Dutch doing a bit of both. When the Poles get onboard, they may play a significant role in the military field, perhaps. The other countries are too little, demographically and economically, to pick such a distinctive profile within the Eu framework, their individual contirbutions, although still quite substantial, would mostly lost in the federal crowd, so to speak. Had the British and the Swedish a change of heart, they still would be substantial players in both fields of course. Does this feel better ? :)
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
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.

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).

Sure, before WW2 bankrupted Britain, that makes sense. But it's worth note that when Canada considered a Free Trade Agreement postwar, it was with the United States.
 
It would've been interesting if Mackenzie King could've burnished his highly substantive OTL legacy by inking the FTA "reciprocity" in '46. Once both UK parties got bitten by the Euro-bug in the early 60s and Trudeau was in office here, there was no chance.
 
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.

This is true - but besides Eurofeds point regarding transformation, note that most, if not all, European countries have absolutely no interest in deploying their military anytime soon.

Germany by now has some thousands of soldiers abroad, which in general proves to be very unpopular. If these troops are subject to actual fighting, as is the case in Afghanistan, this is even more unpopular. So what's the point at all in having 75% of your troops deployable in foreigns regions if your population opposes it?

I think that Europe, acting on its own, could easily have ended all wars in former Jugoslavia. We could have, but didn't. And the reasons Europe didn't are the reasons Europe's military is the reaason that Europe's military is not ready for deployment at any one time
 
Guys

I think that there are so many butterflies that it depends on the circumstances. For instance for Britain I have often said that in one way the EEC/Eu is fairly irrelevant. I.e. that if we ever get ourselves sorted out even the more bureaucratic and corrupt EU won't hold us back while if we continue to wallow in failure and delusion the most favourable and helpful EU can't prevent decline in the longer term.

Similarly, while Britain not joining the EEC in 73 means the members are closer together it doesn't necessarily mean a closer union now. For one thing without Britain to absorb the surpluses the CAP would have to be resolved a lot earlier and more completely, which could be awkward. For another thing there is resentment on the degree of centralisation on the continent, albeit chiefly in the eastern regions that have only recently [relatively] escape the Warsaw Pact. Those limits might have been reached earlier without Britain's presence. Or possibly a closer EU wouldn't have been as attractive to the eastern nations once the Soviet empire collapsed [presuming as seems likely that isn't butterflied]. May still feel the need for security against pressure from Russia but NATO could supply that in most ways.

The other point would be if the butterflies from Britain not entering means that it continues with the free trade association that it had been supporting. [Included Austria, Sweden and a few other countries but quite a while ago so can't remember the details]. If so might be more attractive to some of the nations escaping Soviet/Russian domination.

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.

Britain would in some ways have less influence if outside the EU. However the key question would be the state of Britain itself. It has the population, knowledge and resources to become a prosperous and successful medium sized player if it made the necessary changes to be willing to compete and avoided the excesses of either extreme [70's Labour or 80's Thatcherism]. Or it could continue to drift and decay until some crisis forced reform.

Steve
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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 :D

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.
 
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.

Trudeau was a either a very liberal liberal on economics, or a socialist depending on one's viewpoint. He was vehemently anti-American and was a Third Worldist to the point of obsession, as seen in the 1983 "peace" conference. So I can't see him negotiating such an agreement. It would give the NDP too many WWC votes in Ontario and make the Western provinces hate him even more.
 
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 :D

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?
 
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?

Unfortunately, no, not that i remember, anyway. I believe Frontier of Dreams (the book) has some information, but it's very much an overview type thing. For all that it's quite a thick book, it does attempt to cover the entirety of NZ history, or at least such as we know of it.

Really, History could do with showing up in school in a meaningful way Before year 12... (and even then, you're likely to end up with more American and British history than our own ...)

it's somewhat amazing how much information can be found just on Wikipedia, though.

One thing is quite sure: New Zealand LOVED the commonwealth (or possibly more accurately, British(i forget)) market. Pretty much our entire economy, or at least enough of it to cause major issues when the whole thing went away, was built around it.

on a random and barely related note: the New Zealand dollar is not a dollar at all, in terms of tradition, not coming from the spanish coin of the same name. It is, in fact, a re-branded half-pound. the value may vary, but the same holds true of most commonwealth currencies, i believe. If a commonwealth economic sphere (or imperial sphere, call it what you will) were to become more... solid... and the idea was put forward that it would be useful to standardise the currency used within, i doubt there would be much objection to the use of a decimal pound for the purpose... though it would probably go down better as a 'royal pound' or 'commonwealth pound' than a 'British pound' by that point... in the case of the former, given what happened to the 'European dollar', i could easily see it eventually referred to as simply a 'royal'.

Though of course, i don't think anyone else uses pounds anyway, so it'd probably just be called a pound. heh.

All of the above aside: depending in part on your PoD, there's another issue to consider: The USA, or at least their government, HATED the idea of anyone having an empire, except possibly themselves. Still do, really. Any attempt to forge the Commonwealth into a significant, even middle class, power is probably going to run face first into American opposition at Some point, even if both power and opposition are only economic.

then there's the thought: how are the trade routs to be protected in the face of such American displeasure?

and i think I'm wandering Waaay off my original point, and I'm not even sure if I'm still on topic (I'd have to reread the entire thread to find out :S) so i think I'll stop there.
 
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.
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?
 
Top