Harold James looks into the legacy of Britain's long history of resistance to European financial integration:
As in 1978 and 1992, British obstructionism today may be a blessing in disguise for the rest of Europe. In particular, it opens the way to a Europe of variable geometry, in which only those countries willing to accept stability criteria will go forward with deeper integration. Institutionally, this may be more complex than an EU-wide treaty amendment, but the result can be tailored and crafted more appropriately to the real situations of rather diverse countries.
By contrast, for Britain, the legacy of its heroic defiance of Europe has been much bleaker. In both 1978 and 1992, the immediate aftermath was a substantial period of economic and political turmoil. Monetary shocks led to geopolitical irrelevance.
And Britain would be far better off now with the euro, wouldn't it? Please. As for geopolitical relevance, why should Britain care? Why not just be an island, with a proud past, a working democracy and a trading partner for the world? The whole concept of a United States of Europe to counter the United States of America was and is a horribly hubristic venture. Jennifer Welch thinks through Britain's interests in the current European crisis. Bart Cammaerts focuses on the UK's political role in the broader European project.
(Photo by Christopher Elison)
The Dish 
