WI=The United Kingdom never joined the EEC/EU
- Thread starter omi
- Start date
I think the EEC might be significantly smaller, for starters. It would keep a French-German axis (and the EEC name), rather than seek to be a "Union of Europe" as such - lacking Britain rather dents its ability to claim wider representative status. And if we're keeping a French-German axis, it is not impossible that German reunification never happens, because the sheer size of a united Germany would alter the balance of power within the smaller organisation.
I don't think Britain does much differently, apart from keeping closer economic links with the Commonwealth. It's one less thing for Margaret Thatcher to go crazy about.
The biggest butterflies are reserved for the likes of Australia and New Zealand. Both had the fun of losing a vital export destination overnight. If that never happens, you lessen the economic reform drive of the 1980s.
I don't think Britain does much differently, apart from keeping closer economic links with the Commonwealth. It's one less thing for Margaret Thatcher to go crazy about.
The biggest butterflies are reserved for the likes of Australia and New Zealand. Both had the fun of losing a vital export destination overnight. If that never happens, you lessen the economic reform drive of the 1980s.
From browsing previous stuff, I think the Iberian countries (Spain and Portugal) would probably still join (especially Spain, who tried to join even under Franco in 1962!), as may Greece (if the junta falls like OTL).
I'm mixed over whether the ex-communist countries would want to join the EEC after the fall of communism in 1989...I think it depends on the country (ex. Baltics are more likely than say, Poland).
Along with UK, Ireland and Denmark joined as well OTL...I think from previous posts on this topic that Ireland won't join if UK don't, and Demark won't join at first (but may join later in the 80s because apparently West Germany would be their biggest trading partner by then).
I think the idea of a union was still present in the EEC...as another post said (paraphrasing) "The EEC was always meant to be a stepping stone to further integration. It was never a secret in mainland Europe. Only in the UK it was sold as just trade, and further integration as being just scary talk..."
I think German reunification still happens though...because the condition of East Germany was such that there was little chance of it continuing to survive...
Additionally, EFTA would still be around more, so that could serve as a bit of a rival to the EEC still...some of these ex-communist countries could join that instead...
On the one hand, yes, an EU without the UK (and presumably Ireland) is an EU with a stronger Germany, which means less drive for federalism. On the other hand, an EU without the UK is an EU with fewer special exemptions from the CAP, the euro, and Schengen, and with two fewer major euroskeptic parties. In most of the Continent, the parties occupying the same positions in the domestic ecosystems as the Tories and Labour are enthusiastically pro-EU.
I think there actually would be more drive for federalism, because a stronger Germany would want to promote this idea in order to assuage other countries' fears...
Lateknight
Banned
I have heard that without Britain the EU would be more integrated is heir any truth in this claim.
No, on the contrary, it would make it easier for Franco-German intergovernmentalism to run roughshod over everyone else. To a large extent this already happened with the response to the financial crisis. People said Merkozy for a reason.
The other thing that would give an impetus for federalism is having another power to balance against. The EU isn't really trying to balance against the US or Russia, and you could argue that with the UK trying to put together a more unified Anglosphere the EU might want to balance against the US. In TLs with intercontinental superstates, it makes sense to have more EU federalism (I came up with an Anglo-American one a few years back and never wrote it down, but also my Anglo-French one has a highly federal EU consisting of all states to the east of France).
The impetus question is important, because unity needs to have a reason to exist. Right now, the US can pick off a few European allies when it wants to go to war, and Russia can pick off a few European allies to look the other way when it invades countries in its sphere of influence. This pisses off various pan-European nationalists... but what does Europe really lose from this? It's not like colonial divide-and-rule: neither the US nor Russia is dividing-and-ruling any EU states - they divide the EU states to rule countries that either are far from the EU (Iraq) or have enough problems of their own that their accession isn't a major priority (Ukraine). It wounds the pan-European pride, but nothing more than that.
If the UK never joins, then EFTA remains a thing, and an important one. It might well be that all of the Scandinavian countries stay if EFTA and don't join the EEC. That might well be an appropriate half-way house for the Eastern European nations, too, while they catch up to the West.