On the weekend, David Cameron’s decision not to associate his government with the resolution in Brussels to establish a tighter E.U. treaty – and his deputy’s, Nick Clegg’s, disagreement – was the number one subject of discussion in the U.K. The Guardian and the Financial Times deplored the decision, on the grounds that it isolated England, the Daily Telegraph welcomed it and the Independent predicted the end of British membership in the E.U. In Germany, Die Zeit wrote the last word had not been spoken on the subject, and Le Monde does not give the British veto any prominence at all.
All the E.U. leaders, including the British, are pursuing a policy of draconian austerity to ease the debt crisis. Many economists, however, believe that the emphasis should be placed on growth rather than austerity. One of the most eloquent of these is the American Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz, who commented in the Italian La Repubblica on December 7 on the policies adopted by the leaders of Germany and France:
“It is fine to blame their southern compatriots for fiscal profligacy or, in the case of Spain and Ireland, for letting free markets have free reign, without seeing where that would lead. But that doesn’t address today’s problem: huge debts, whether a result of private or public miscalculations, must be managed within the euro framework. Public-sector cutbacks today do not solve the problem of yesterday’s profligacy; they simply push economies into deeper recessions.
“Europe’s leaders know this. They know that growth is needed. But, rather than deal with today’s problems and find a formula for growth, they prefer to deliver homilies about what some previous government should have done. This may be satisfying for the sermonizer, but it won’t solve Europe’s problems – and it won’t save the euro.”
This seems eminently plausible. Therefore, one would hope that, whether or not the leaders will invent a formula to enable the euro-skeptical British to join in after all, they will soon be able to shift the emphasis from money-saving to stimulation.
Eric Koch’s book, The Weimar Triangle, is available at Indigo-Chapters and in your local bookstore. 
This seems so very obvious, since money is only a token of the underlying economy. No economy no money.
If Clegg dumps Cameron, the Tories will win a majority. The clever people in the Guardian and the Financial Times like Europe, the average Brit does not. It might be the xenophobia of Little Englanders, but it’s reality.
Edmund Burke, who was a fan of direct democracy while conceding the practicality of representative democracy, made the following point: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
Government by referendum – or worse, by opinion poll – deprives the voting public of the judgment of those who have the capacity for constructive action, and who might, by their industry, have learned more about the complex issues that need to be decided than the mass of the voting public.
A substantial majority vote by such representatives, for or against a decision, has a better chance of bringing wisdom to bear than the “won’t power” of the mob.
(There I go again, supposing that there might be an elite – and that it might be represented among those elected, in spite of the lack of expertise of the electorate. Wishful thinking, I guess.)