Britain is tied to the Eurozone – so why keep it at arms length?
Europe does affect British economic fortunes, which is why it is so counterproductive to pretend "so
By Petros Fassoulas Published 30 April 2012 14:16
Another quarter, another set of negative GDP figures, another drop back in recession for the British economy. The much talked about, yet elusive, recovery seems to be slipping from our grasp once again.
Many, especially Keynesian economists and those on the left of the political spectrum, will tell you this was inevitable. No surprise. Nor is it surprising that the government has been quick to blame everyone else for the state of the British economy. That’s what politicians do best.
According to the government’s script what is really to blame for the economic predicament we are in is the sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone and the economic crisis it has generated. With our main trading partners in economic contraction our chances for recovery are significantly reduced, the story goes. Not to mention that the rising cost of raw materials like petrol is pushing our inflation rates up, while the global banking crisis is forcing the Bank of England to inject billions in the British banking system. At the same time, the printing of money is reducing the value of our currency, making imports of German cars, Japanese DVDs and American smartphones we love so much more expensive. And all the above combined is making the Bank keep interest rates at levels so low that they are starting to become unsustainable.
So much for the cherished economic, monetary and fiscal independence of Britain. The fact of the matter is that the government is, to a large extent, right. Most of what a very open but small and peripheral economy does is affected (and often dictated) by events that take place elsewhere.
The value of our GDP, the level of our inflation and interest rates, the very health of our economy are, by the government’s own admission, dependant on outside, European as well as global, factors. All we can do is tighten our belts and hope people will keep lending us money in affordable terms (their words, not mine).
As a result it is a bit disingenuous for the government to go on exclaiming their holy duty to maintain our economic and monetary sovereignty one moment while the next admitting that the very notion of "sovereignty" is void of meaning in the context of the internationally integrated economy Britain is plugged in to.
We are not just affected by the state the European economy is in. We are the European economy. Our trade inflows and outflows, our financial services sector, our supply chains and the source (as well as destination) of investment are one with those of the EU. And for good reason. This is the biggest market in the world and one of the most mature and sophisticated economies. Britain prospers when the EU economy does well and it suffers when it stagnates.
The plot really thickens when one keeps in mind that the EU has engaged in a process of monetary integration, soon to be coupled with fiscal and political union. No matter what the immediate and short term problems of the Eurozone (and its institutional architecture) are, the Eurozone and its single currency are so systemically important for the EU (and global) economy that it is a matter of when rather than whether the Eurozone will sort itself out and continue its path towards becoming a global reserve currency.
Before the sovereign debt crisis in Greece and the burst of asset bubbles in Ireland and Spain the euro had become the most held currency and the de facto second reserve currency. It has maintained that status throughout the financial and debt crisis of 2008 and 2010 and it has also kept its value, while global powers like the US and China have verbally and practically shown their confidence in the euro.
As a result we will soon find ourselves in a world where the global economy will be dominated by two, maybe three, currencies: the US Dollar, the Euro and the Chinese Renminbi. A situation that according to academic research (pdf) will contribute to the re-balancing of the global economy, away from the uni-polar and destabilising current system and towards a more sustainable multi-polar system.
The question is what happens to small and peripheral economies like Britain’s, with a freely floating currency like Sterling, when they get caught up in the headwinds of those three global reserve currencies and the enormous economies that underpin them.
Some people are forecasting that Judgement Day is approaching for the Eurozone. But the Armageddon they are predicting (or hoping for) is not going to take place. It is actually Britain that will have to make some important judgement calls in the not so distant future about how it wishes to welcome this brave new world. On the side-lines, affected by the elements of economic weather but unable to have an effect on them. Or as part of a strong and global currency. The sooner we start discussing the merits of that question the more prepared we will be for when the time comes to make this decision.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















9 comments
To answer the headline question...
To prevent contagion - of us by 'em !
Looks like one of them lizards.....
With regard to the headline, that is like saying, I'm stood in the toilet, why don't I put my foot into the bowl to push down the ****.
Left is the new right?
Whilst I want greater cooperation within Europe I think the Euro-federalists are going to probably destroy any hope of that. The recession has exposed the fundamental flaws in the Euro (rather than created them) and at this moment in time Germany and the other creditor countries are far from ready to politcally commit their countries to take responsibility for countries like Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece. One of the reasons is trust - creditor countries don't trust indebted southern European countries to make economic reforms if they provide support. Most southern European countries don't have any political parties advocating northern style social democracy nor is there much desire for it in their populations. It's difficult to see how there is going to be an agreement that both saves the Euro and also doesn't lead to Southern European countries revolting against economic reforms that creditor countries demand in return for help.
If there is a real possiblity of Scotland leaving the UK and regions in Spain breaking away because they feel they have no control over central governments then it's pretty clear that a more centralised EU will just engender even more discontent than there is today and countries will vote to leave the EU altogether.
Eurosceptism isn't just a problem in Britain, it's a problem in many countries like the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. None of these countries have a strong pro-federalist EU population. If there is to be a federalist or quasi-federalist EU then it will probably be much smaller than the current EU, with the hope that it will have a core of Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
If we do go down that road then I think there is great potential in countries like Britain, Sweden, Denmark and other countries setting up a new and better organisation than the current EU that would be beneficial but not anti-democratic. We could invite Turkey to join as the countries most against Turkey joining the EU are Germany and France.
I just hope that if it doesn't get sorted out then we have learnt the lessons of the past and we don't return to near constant war. I'll be thankful for our nuclear deterrence if we do.
All we're getting is "rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb..."
This article is more wishful thinking than analysis: my own crystal ball is telling me this. Europe will fall apart: driven by internal contradiction and age old animosities. The European experiment is at critical-mass. Greece will be the first to explode, quickly followed by Italy then Spain. The French will elect a Socialist president with disastrous consequences for the French Republic. Germany will consolidate its dominance. Russia will exploit Europe’s considerable problems, and the Balkans will explode into ethnic violence, but this time the United States, because of its own economic problems will not intervene. Britain still has choices; it can either become embroiled in this coming maelstrom or it can look to the high seas for salvation.
agree entirely with this. But unfortunately the British have such an ingrained habit of loathing anything European, they are blind to their best advantage, and continue in their bigoted, narrow views kept alive by hostile, especially foreign (Murdoch) media and self-interested politicians who are scared of losing power, who don’t know how to operate on a European scale, who are in fact just scared of Europe; instead of seeing it as an exciting challenge, for progress. Everybody blames the EU for everything. e.g. even Abu Qatada and Strasbourg. It’s the EU’s fault, innit. The EU is always villainous ‘them’ vs virtuous ‘us’. So joining the euro? The British? Well, might as well adopt Somali pieces of eight. Look at Switzerland, people say, we can be like them. We can’t, and lucky for them they are not like us, having joined several EU treaties including Schengen. The British are a hopeless case. The EU, even now, doesn’t dampen others’ ambitions who do see the real importance and want association, like Israel, even Morocco.
Dont suppose you could give us a list of those advantages without pretending the the EU is the only entity we can trade with. Isn't the EU really just a retirement home for politicians?