Britons see 'dangers ahead' in U.S. relationship - USATODAY.com: "Britain 'should never be frightened of saying 'no' to America,' Cameron said this year. He has said the relationship between the two nations needs to be 'rebalanced' into an alliance that is 'solid but not slavish.' Clegg said the British 'still too readily put ourselves in a position of unthinking subservience to American interests.' He called on Britain to wake up from the 'spell of default Atlanticism.'"
Well, it is not unlikely that these two gents will Rule Britannica later this week. I wonder what David Cameron meant with having been "slavish" to the US? He is probably trying to be nasty to Tony Blair and Labour but does this not downgrade the British people rather? I see no reason for the British to be slavish at all but it would be important with a good Anglo-American understanding which seems to be what is planned--a redefinition. Is Sweden redefining also? DN.se gives Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, a beating today for his apparent belligerence.
Apparently Gordon Brown is the person to thank for the non-membership of Britain in Euroland. Tony Blair was for giving up the sterling. Sweden voted no in a referendum 2003. However, the finance minister of Sweden, Anders Borg, would claim that Sweden would have performed well in and outside of the EMU. The Britons don't agree since they have devalued the pound currently. It is going to be interesting to see if a coalition between Cameron and the EMU friendly Clegg would mean a more Euro friendly attitude in Britain or if it moves more eurosceptic in line of the Tories. According to Irwing Stelzer in the Wall Street Journal, Euroland is changed forever, the bailout of Greece is going to cost 30% of the value after a restructuring of the debt. Euroland is still on its slippery slope apparently. Markets are wary. This would mean subsidies and a breach of EU rules?
Anders Borg said, before the Greek crisis, that Sweden should join the Euro for political reasons. What I don't understand then is that there seems not to be any further political integration and thus there would not be a reason? Borg thought that people in Euroland would listen more to Swedish arguments if we were members--an experience from after the Swedish chairmanship 2009. I must say that I have taken in the arguments from various economists that the EMU is malconstructed and that it cannot function properly without a federal Europe, which is not on the drawing board any longer. As a layman, I have concluded that EMU is no good.