Well, the truth is that the Kaiser wasn't calling the shots in Berlin.
True to an extent, he was however setting policy and his policy was driving the British to be anti-Germany. I guess what I was trying to say (badly) was that due to German policy (driven by the Kaiser) in the decades leading up to the war the British were primed to join the Entente. However even with that priming the actual trigger to get them to declare war was the invasion of Belgium, and it was highly likely without that trigger that Great Britain would have declared neutrality rather than war.
Also the British will not be selling good to the Germans, and more than likely would still enter on the side of the French and Russians.
I respectfully disagree. Without the trigger of Germany overrunning neutral states it is likely that the traditional British strategy of maintaining the balance of power in Europe would have prevailed. In that case the British would have watched who was winning and helped the other side by sale of goods/resources and or cash infusion. This is very similar to what they did in the eras of the Spanish dominance of Europe and of French dominance of Europe. They might have sold to the Germans if it looked like the French and Russians were getting the upper hand. They certainly would not have blockaded Germany so the Germans could have purchased goods from other neutral countries (South America, North America, Belgium, the Nordic countries). All by its self that would have changed the war dramatically.