Has Britain and Cameron done the right thing?

In this particular instance Cameron was right to say no as he (the UK) had been totally outmanoeuvred by Sarkozy - in my opinion this was Sarkozy at his political best/worst depending how you view him

For Cameron "no" was his least worst option, however having said that, the way that Cameron said "no" was extremely poor and unstatesmanlike, it pandered to the Eurosceptic little island mentality and the irrational bogeyman fear of Brussels bureaucracy that has bedevilled the UK EEC relationship for decades and, financially, has cost UK citizens very dearly - Brits might like to contemplate how many Baht they migh be getting for their old pounds now if the UK had actually joined the Euro, while it is impossible to be precise, in my considered opinion it would now comfortably be in excess of 60

The Eurosceptics have proved that, with the right amount of nationalistic propaganda, it is easy to get turkeys to vote for Christmas.

While there are some genuine Eurosceptics and nationalists with logically thought out positions that I know and respect (even if I don’t agree with them), unfortunately they are in the minority, far too many of the Eurosceptics that are in the media glare scare me due to the high degree of wholly irrational scare mongering of their “nationalistic ideology” which is fascist in everything but name (nationalism, like religion, has all too often demonstrated its ability to generate the absolute worst in man).

There is little doubt in my mind that the degree of the financial services cost part of the deal was a clever, cynical and politically calculated move, particularly on the part of Sarkozy (and to a much lesser degree Merkel), that Machiavelli would indeed have been proud.

However, at the same time, it should be remembered that financial services are not exactly an innocent party, they played a major role in creating the financial meltdown in the first place and, since being bailed out, have gone straight back to playing their old games.

Whatever the outcome, politically, Sarkozy could not lose (he has an election coming up and, with DSK now history, this is great new piece of political capital for him).

For clarity (or lack thereof) I will reiterate my two faced position on the EEC and the Euro (which I have posted before):

JimboPSM wrote:..... “instinctively the nationalistic little Englander part of me really doesn’t like it but when I stand back and look at it coolly, rationally and objectively I am forced to admit that it is actually better in the long run for the UK”.

While I know many people who, like myself, because of nationalistic pride do not really like the loss of sovereignty involved in being a member of the EEC and having the EURO as a currency (instead of our hallowed pound), when push comes to shove in assessing the longer term economic benefits they are of the same mind as myself.

JimboPSM wrote:..... Brits might like to contemplate how many Baht they migh be getting for their old pounds now if the UK had actually joined the Euro, while it is impossible to be precise, in my considered opinion it would now comfortably be in excess of 60

Correction

In making the above statement I incorrectly used the rate at the beginning of 2002 when the EUR effectively became a fully fledged currency - this resulted in me overstating the degree to which Brits would have benefitted.

I should have based my statement on an estimate of the GBP/EUR rate at the time the Euro was effectively formed which was at the end of 1998.

In my opinion if the UK had joined the Euro region at that time the rate would have been permanently fixed (at approximately) 1.00 GBP = 1.40 EUR.

If my amended assumption were to be correct then the rate that the “old pound” would get against the THB (with all other things being equal) would currently be nearly 19% higher.

i.e. based on market close in Thailand on 9th December the rate would have been 57.4 rather than 48.3 (rather less than 60 instead of comfortably above it).

Apologies to anyone I may have misled