Well, I was speculating rather cynically there because:

1. David Cameron had absolutely no room for manoeuvre - his own party would have exacted terrible revenge if he had signed up anything which transferred any more power to Brussels and the electorate would have removed him from power, ultimately (see the converse improvement in his standing here by not signing anything)

2. Sarkozy has an election to fight next year and a bit of Brit-bashing always goes down well in France (the reverse is true here too - the best of enemies, we remain    :-))

3. Sarkozy & Merkel actually achieved nothing with that sumit accord. The fundamental problems for the Euro still exist. All the headlines were about the UK and not about the lack of anything new emerging

4. The great financial challenge of our time was discussed in one session over dinner and that was it. If the reports are true (I think they are), Cameron had one chance to speak, he stated the UK position, Sarkozy shouted at him that it was unacceptable, Cameron said that the UK would not sign then......and that was it..........

Sadly, yes, I do think that. I say 'sadly' because the only vote we have ever been allowed on Europe in the UK was a democratic vote in the early 70s in favour of a common market. I think that most people here would still support that idea but things have gone way beyond what was mandated to the politicians in those days (see my comments about Technocrats in Italy and Greece above).
 
I suspect that the pygmy politicans we have today would be incapable of mismantling the EZ structure without resort to Nationalistic tendencies but we can always hope, I suppose. 

Hello (I am afraid that I can't read your Christian name).

How can one explain the inexplicable? :-)

Seriously, democratic countries which are part of Europe but outside the EZ are considered a serious threat by the Brussels dictatorship. Imagine, for instance, the UK starting to prosper relative to the EZ but stubbornly staying outside and, hopefully, starting to distance itself from the Brussels stranglehold. Imagine the Italian and Greek people going through agony, all at the behest of EZ imposed Technocrats and in the name of saving the Euro whilst outside countries are able to take a more flexible approach. Van Rompuy/Merkel & Sarkozy can and they don't like the prospect. As my short piece was meant to illustrate, trying to resist can lead to serious unpleasantness!   

Good question! The Global Market that we have all been following for the last 15-20 years is not sustainable for that much longer, in my opinion. We cannot continue indefinitely to live beyond our means and to continue to delegate so much manufacturing to China/Asia; all funded by debt.
 
How will England cope? Well, we are a reasonably pragmatic nation here but it will take enormous political will to change things and people's attitudes and expectations and to start encouraging reinvestment in manufacturing (we are still good at high tech manfacturing but it will never be sufficient on its own). 

It's depressing but things will have to get much worse before they can start to get better, in my opinion.  

Dear Sir,

I can't speak for Sweden and Denmark but the UK certainly has not escaped its own economic downturn. The inflation which we all face is largely, I suspect, as a result of the massive economic stimulus (ie printing money) which has taken place over the past three years. However, the Uk's very difficult economic siutation is very much down to our last Government which was totally and cynically reckless in its spending. I suspect that any Govt, right or left wing, would have found it difficult to take a really economically disciplined approach in those heady boom years to 2006/7 but our own Govt's behaviour at that time was breathtaking. 

Cutting taxes now to get the economy moving would be a very sensible thing to do, in my opinion, but it is politically impossible with a coalition Govt, unfortunately. 

As to what Europe will do about the Euro, I really don't see that there is sufficient political courage to either dismantle it (my view) or to properly unite the Eurozone into one proper, democratic bloc (highly improbable). 

Many commentators here believe that Germany will support the Euro as long as it can to gain the last benefits and then drop it, possibly in favour of a smaller, North European currency zone, when it becomes politically impossible in Germany to sustain it any longer.

Actually, I don't find Frau Merkel that impressive and suspect that she wil simply be overtaken by events, as has proved to be the case so far.      

Well the ECB has consistently got it wrong, hasn't it. Maybe things will change with Signor Draghi in charge.....the reality is twfold, though, I think:

1. No-one really knows what is going to happen next with any certainty, including the Central Bankers (Mervin King here has freely admitted that) and there has been a general hope/expectation amongst the European political elite for some time (until only relatively recently) that the recovery would begin in 2012, and

2. The ECB is Bundesbank-controlled, focusing principally on what is the correct policy for the German economy and all the anti-inflation angst that that implies (and was evidenced by raising rates when many commentators here, at least, were urging the opposite, for the benefit of the Eurozone, as a whole.

Too much austerity can force a weakening economy into freefall and that is the risk for certain countries in the EZ; but what is the alternative? Balancing austerity with a depreciating (those countries can't print it, in case of need)??.....we're back to where we started above.

I totally agree with you since I honestly cannot see any political will for a true fiscal and political union (as opposed to the fiction Frau Merkel is proposing/enforcing). Your question is a difficult one to answer, though, since it is much more a question of politics than economics/commerce. I have long felt that the Eurocrats/Europhiles were desperate to move things along too far, too fast. A free(ish) market with freedom of movement, jobs etc would, over time, produce everything their hearts might desire, I'm sure. However, whilst I believe that a return to the old EEC-type model would be desirable I believe that it would be now be difficult to manage politically (look at the backlash for simply opting out of the 'Fiskal Union') and a total collapse of the current Eu structure might well be much more likely. The longer things go on as they are at present, the more likely that will be the result.

In such circumstances the cost to the UK might be a very different type of cost to, say Latvia, for which the political consequences might be much more significant.

As my answer above mentions, it is not all one-way traffic with the EZ/EU. For all the threats, we import a huge volume of goods and services from the EU and we are still, I believe, the second biggest contributor to its budget after Germany but before France. And all that despite our well-publicised scepticism. To simply cast out the UK and isolate us would be equally if not more damaging for the EU in the short term so a negotiated solution along the EEA/EFTA lines really ought to be possible and would probably be desirable in my own opinion. Why not?

I would dearly love to see a properly referenced referendum on our membership but, the way things are going, that could easily lead to a vote to leave entirely. I don't believe that a clear majority would go exactly that far today (a majority clearly exists among the humble UK electorate for the sort of thing you suggest, if only the political elite would allow them the chance to voice that opinion by voting) but the public will only become more and more sceptical here the longer this situation continues to fester. David Cameron's popularity has soared here since that fateful night in Brussels, by the way.......  

Well the UK relies heavily on trade with Europe, it's true. However, it is a two-way street and we actually import far more from Europe than we export. A recession (or worse) in Europe would damage the UK for sure but the world is a big place; we have the Commonwealth countries with which we have substantial trade, not to mention the US. Your point is well made, though. If the EZ gets into severe difficulties it will have an adverse impact on everyone but I would rather get splashed by the debris than go head-first into the fan, if you get my meaning. 

Dear Sir,

If I understand your question or point correctly, you are saying that each country should be responsible for its own debts. That should indeed tbe the case and is precisely the reason why the Eurozone countries are now in the mess they are in.

If a country overspends or borrows it pays the penalty by way of a weakened currency, higher inflation (ultimately) and higher interests rates but the weakened currency is often part of the solution. The EZ countries took full advantage of the bond markets' assumption that they were the same or similar credit risk to Germany and provided too much finance at too cheap interest rates. Now they are locked into an impossible position with that debt, an overvalued currency (from their own position/perspective) which they cannot devalue and a newly sceptical bond market which is now charging huge rates of interest and growing difficulty with raising the money they need to refinance their debts.
 
Following on from my theme about the UK being punished for declining to join their voyage to disaster, France conveniently followed up by breaching normal diplomatic protocol and trying to influence the ratings to downgrade the UK credit rating (all countries are competing for debt after all). Apart from underlining how desperate things really are it also underlined the fact that the UK is rated more highly precisely because it cannot go bust in the usual sense; it is control of its own currency and can always print money to pay its debts and, provided that is accompanied by a change of ways (ie change of Government in our case), and a credible plan to get out of difficulty, the bond markets and ratings agenices will look much more favourably at that than a country with similar/greater  difficulties (like France) but without the usual means to do continue to service its debts without continued support from its lenders.