A French victory
The British government seems none too worried about Mr Sarkozy ripping references to "free trade" and "competition" out of the planned treaty. They say their lawyers are crawling all over the text and they are not alarmed.
There are two interpretations.
The first rests on the premise that many French people voted "No" because of fears of globalisation, and a belief that Brussels was on the side of big business and Anglo-Saxon economics. You wouldn't know it from reading the British papers, but that is how many on the continent see it. So this could be a presentation sop, so Mr Sarkozy can say, a la Blair, all the nasty bits of the constitution have gone.
The other interpretation is that it鈥檚 aimed at stopping the European Commission aggressively pursuing those companies that break the law. The commission is rolling up its sleeves to launch a series of raids on naughty French and German companies. To put it crudely, they can sell gas and water to us, the Brits, and we are not allowed to do the same in their countries, even though EU law says we can. It鈥檚 Mr Blair's claim that these days Brussels is backing Britain, or at least his vision of economic policy. Changing the treaty could put a stop to this.
There is an irony here. Mr Blair鈥檚 efforts are all aimed at keeping Britain's "red lines". He freely admits to other leaders that his concerns are political. No British minister seriously thinks Britain is about to lose its seat on the UN Security Council, not least because the French want to hang on to theirs. But it鈥檚 a constant claim in the press, so he has to make sure it is explicitly ruled out.
There are many other examples and they all take a lot of diplomatic effort and, above all, a close relationship with President Sarkozy. It seems to me there just isn't enough fuel in the diplomatic tank to open up another front, especially if it annoys the Germans and the French, who will be key to allowing Mr Blair to claim 100% success on
the issues he has constantly raised.
So it鈥檚 just possible while Mr Blair tilts at what he feels are Eurosceptic windmills, real ogres are creeping past and escaping his lance. So the British popular press may have handed victory to the French.
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 91热爆's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Wow, so many insults lobbed at those who don't want a USSE and the press, its amazing ... ofcourse you're better, you can see that all the problems are non-existant and the EU is the greatest thing since Karl Marx - hallelujah.
Thanks Mark - you're providing a great service running this blog!
This report is worrying, as if the French manage to get the commercially interesting parts of the Treatystitution rubbed out, then we are left with a social EU 脿 la francaise that SHOULD be of no interest to Blair as it is not in Brtain's interests.
If this turns out to be the case, and yet he still returns home crowing victory, I hope even more fervently that conservative party pressure forces a referendum prior to ratification. This would mean that the one thing that the brits actually said yes to back in the '70s is being sidelined!
It's all very well removing competition from the treaty, but they are the reason the UK signed up to the EEC in the first place. Sarkozy is openly interventionist which goes against the grain of the whole level playing field which is one of the finest achievements of the EU project.
Blair should veto it or get us out. Fast.
The problem is that very few EU countries practice free market ideology, they just talk about it. For example: the Spanish government blocks EOn takeover of Endesa, but Iberdrola have no problem buying Scottish Power.
In order for these free market ideas to work, they have to be imposed uniformly, and in the EU that is impossible to police. Who is going to tell a country they can't sell their 'national champion'? Britains policy of selling off assets such as power and other utilities will come back to haunt the taxpayer, since it is inevitable at some point in the future that they will have to be bailed out a la British Energy a few years back.
Contrast this with the French who now have a world-class transport infrastructure and their extensive nuclear power programme is so successful and electricity so inexpensive that we import about 2GW every day through our interconnector with France! They decided a long time ago the free market wasn't for them and in the next few decades they will reap the rewards, while life in the UK gets ever-more expensive.
NO not handed victory to the french or germans but a step towards leaving the EU.. This country is being pummelled by the EU strategy of wealth transferance through EU workers flooding the country and sending their money home EXAMPLE 拢150 Per week x a million workers over a year...
I worked hard for the same company for twenty years they sacked me and replaced me with polish workers I cant sign on because my girlfriend works. I have a choice leave her or get no money. My house is on the Market. This is a story no doubt repeated up and down the country. While people like you push for the EU BECAUSE you like its luxury and treatment of you.. All at the expense of the hard workers of the UK who are getting trashed.
Oh dear. Lets hope it works out differently.
If we end up with a treaty that looks like the constitution, no referendum in the UK (or elsewhere) on its acceptance AND the basis that we joined (a European Free trade area) has been chucked out - I can see the anti-Europe brigade having a field day. And with good reason!
So it's all the fault of the meeja. How about this for an idea? Take this to a referendum as was originally promised and is demanded by 85% of voters. *Bangs head*
But will competition be 'taken out' of the Treaty? It will, according to the draft IGC mandate, be taken out of a clause on the objectives of the Union. However, it seems clear from press stories that all of the EC's specific powers over competition and state aid will remain untouched.
As for 'free trade', these specific words don't appear either in the current Treaties or the Constitutional Treaty. The draft IGC mandate keeps the words 'internal market' in the clause on the EU's objectives -- and it also keeps all the detailed rules concerning the internal market.
It's astonishing that such an enormous change to the EU's economic policy should be sneaked in at such a late hour. This would end the policy of free-trade and open competition which was one of the founding bulwarks of the EU.
The move seems designed entirely to protect French state-backed industries from competition or predation, while they are free to gobble up companies elsewhere in the EU, with financial support from the French government.
The so-called 'economic liberal' Sarkozy is now revealed in his true colours - a washed-out pink dirigisme that seeks to ensure Europe's decline into a third-rate power is accelerated. Perfidious France has done it again!
PS: I really appreciate this blog. I'd almost given up on the 91热爆 site after being force-fed endless stories about Global Warming, but seeing these informative reports has brought me back.
The French have always been smarter at this game than the British. I guess taking your clues on Europe from the tabloids (which after all serve the less intelligent readers) is just not a good approach.
In substance, Sarkozy's move doesn't mean anything. Competition is enshrined in treaty articles that will not be changed.
The UK is losing again much sympathy with their idtiotic red lines, and the result may well be a Europe of different speeds which in essence is like relegating the UK back to EFTA. Fine by me as it proves that the British tactic to be inside the EU as a spoiler doesn't work. European integration is a historical necessity and it will progress, one way or the other. Britain enjoys just another of its delusions. It's sad, because we really like you guys.
L.S.,
What happened is that they took some lines out of what is now article 3 EC, which sums up the objectives of the Community. This article, by itself, does not confer any competences on the Community, except in rare circumstances by way of the doctrine of implied powers (ECJ case: opinion 1/76). As long as the rules on antitrust and state aids (currently articles 81 - 89) aren't touched, it shouldn't make much of a difference, legally, that these lines are stricken from article 3.
If the British and other negotiating teams have become so lost in finding ways to deal with their own Europhobes that they would allow free competition to be written out of the treaty then Brussels might as well shut up shop. I speak as an enthusiastic Europhile. But if the result of this important and much needed treaty is to re-establish/affirm the French right to cheat within European law then it's time to tear up the Treaty of Rome, fill in the tunnel and close the UK borders to all French commercial interests. Too bad if you're doing business/have purchased property in France as a Brit. My advice would be to bail out while you still can.
So - the French (presumably supported by the Germans) have finally shown that the EU is not really interested in 'we, the people' - big business is the winner here...
Clearly, what is meant by 'full employment' in French eyes signals 'state intervention' when it suits...
Just proves how cynical the EU leaders can be in these negotiations...
As a Common Market or European Economic Community is what the EU was sold to us as in 1973, the last time we were asked for our opinion, surely the removal of these specific aims from this latest treaty is hugely important and significant to the mandate for Britains continued membership.
There should be no agreement signed by the British delegation if France and Germany do not allow a free market in buying/selling companies and continue to restrict third world imports. Britain joined a common market not a protective would be superstate.
It all makes sense if Blair wants to be President of the EU!
This is the same reason for why the French labour markets is off-limits to Polish citizens.
If the EU drops its commitment to aggressive competition laws it really will be about time for the UK to leave the EU. That would signal that not only was the EU a set of institutions seriously deficient with regard to democratic practices but also that the peoples of Europe, who benefit from rigorous competition, would from that point forward be less important in the EU than corporations 鈥 legally.
As for the French and German governments, who reportedly support such a measure, their intent appears to be to minimise painful reform of their economies, preferably at the expense of other member states.
Due to the French senseless leftist ideology, France has gone from one of the richest country in the EU, down to one of the poorest, and with some of the worst social problems found in Europe (massive unemployment, racism, violence...)
And all this in less than 25 years!
Now they want to force-feed the same lousy ideas to the rest of Europe, using whatever is left of their past clout in the EU.
I wish someone would stand up to those lunatics, and defend "free markets and undistorted competition", because that's what creates wealth and employment - not some empty "we'll be committed to full employment" rhetoric a-la Sarkozy!
The only way victory will be handed to the French is if the Labour party denies the British people a referendum.
If there is a referendum the EU nomenkultura's chains will be rejected by the British people. So don't blame the press. If blame there is, place it where it should lie, with Blair and Brown denying the people a voice, not with the "popular press" who are doing far more to resist the EU nomenkultura than you are, Mr Mardell.
This informative blog is right to point out that the French are not wishing to operate on a level playing field. However, it is more important to ensure a retention of sovereignty than quibble about access to markets. I would actually agree with the French that free trade is not necessarily a good thing. The decisions in cases like Buy Irish are not sensible and decisions along lines of Eugen v Austria and Keck are more pragmatic and practical. Full employment is a better aim. The Commission should stop monopolies and be allowed to do so.
Blair should be shot if he allows the free market references to be deleted. It would be a catastrophic reversal in the battle to make the European Union useful.
Oh come on, give us a break. From your view, it is all a big French plot against England, and you have not got out the 16th century. In a sense, sadly, Poland with its quasi democratic caricature leadership that makes Russia look lika a 1st class democracy is bringing up incredible arguments to prevent the deal too. The majority in the EU, however, want to make the place more manageable. Majority voting is ok. I come from a small country and have nothing against UK or Germany or France making big decisions we would follow. This is because we are all European and know what values all the other countries stand for. So, either join or leave the EU, it is decision time. And stop spoiling the party. Poland - I have no comment.
What was rejected in France was a document badly promoted by a very unpopular Government. The fact that it was a proposed European Constitution prepared under the chairmanship of a former French President was largely irrelivant to the average voter. Exactly the opposite happened in Spain.
What are the changes proposed in the current draft?
Is it art I-3 viz
The Union shall offer...an internal market where competition is free and undistorted
and/or is article III-177 changed
viz
For the purposes set out in Article I-3, the activities of the Member States and the Union shall include, as provided in the Constitution, the adoption of an economic policy which is based on the close coordination of Member States鈥 economic policies, on the internal market and on the definition of common objectives, and conducted in accordance with the principle of an open market economy with free competition.
Your report suggests the former
Abandoning the free trade principle is totally unacceptable.
Mr Blair, a veto is called for now. Live up to your promise. Or did you lie again? Veto this now. A suggestion like this shouldn't exist more than 5 minutes.
France is true to form as always, it wants all the benefits of the EU, but none of the burdens. It wants its companies to be able to trade in the rest of the EU, but not vice versa if it works against French companies.
I recall the socalled 'Luxembourg compromise, France demanded this compromise to allow a country to veto EEC matters it considered to be 'not in its interests'. When others (particularly Britain) started using it, France demanded the compromise be abolished.
I wonder when the press will accuse France of going against the interests of the 'club'. Somehow EUphiles will blame this on Britain, I'd wager.
So long as European Union politics is conducted as a zero-sum game, or as close to it as is possible, the only thing guaranteed to happen is that not much progress will be made on strengthening that which has - by its very existence - more or less aided in the creation and sustaining of a Pax Europa over a place that long needed such a thing.
"Britain wants this, Poland wants that" is one thing; that's negotiations. "French win, Britons lose"...that's another thing, because really, if such a mindset persists then eventually...Europe loses. Either way, it seems as if Britain is trying to delay if, not the inevitable, then one of two outcomes - either the UK's departure from the EU, or the creation of a "United States of Europe". There are other courses, sure. But these stick out.
Neither possibility is particularly a bad thing, though the former is much less preferable to the latter, for all parties concerned, I think.
Free and undistorted competition was supposed to prevent politicians from messing about with business matters that they have little understanding of. It was bad enough before - it will be even worse now. The truth is that the "market failures" that are often bleated about,are a whole lot less common than political failures.
There is little point to this summit summit. The EU is well past it's sell-by date, it is time for the UK to leave.
I've spent a lot of time in western Europe and I think a key problem is simply that the "free market" is a British idea that has spread internationally over the course of the centuries. But continental countries have a different economic history and don't see it in the same way. It's probably the single biggest difference between the UK and rest of Europe have in my opinion.
Thomas: France one of the poorest countries in Europe?
According to the IMF, France's GDP per capita is $30,693 (marginally less than Italy, Germany, Japan) compared to an EU average of $28,213. So one of the "poorest countries in the EU" is 9% above average? I wouldn't be so rude to suggest the possibility that you might be blinkered by a senseless rightist ideology...
Back on topic, removing references to free trade and competition surely doesn't make the mini-treaty "anti-" - it just stops it from being intrinsically "pro-", n'est-ce pas?
It's probably true that the change won't make much difference. Sarkozy is being very clever - it gives him a little trophy to take home. I think he is truly a liberal at heart and good news for the UK view of things but French realpolitik means he needs to show he's beaten up the Anglo-Saxons on something -especially with Blair so brazenly trying to get things out of the text he himself signed 3 years ago.
Competition was always a bit odd as an objective in itself, rather than as a means to an end. Let's just hope the judges don't over-interpret this change.
That said, it does make you wonder if Blair and those around him - FCO and political types, arts graduates to man, I'll bet - really have their eye on the ball. A red line on unnecessary language about foreign policy (ie protecting FCO diplomats' jobs and self-importance) rather than protetcing the economically useful bits of the EC? Get real..
'No British minister seriously thinks Britain is about to lose its seat on the UN Security Council, not least because the French want to hang on to theirs.'
If British ministers think so, they are more stupid than I thought. President Sarkozy will be HAPPY to give up his UNSC delegate's seat to the EU delegate. He wants the EU to be a centralised megastate (whether he's right or wrong is debatable). Who knows, maybe after this happens he will be the first EU delegate?
Same as Blair will be HAPPY to sign the Euroconstitution, regardless of how bad for the British people the final deal will be. He just wants to be appointed the first EU president, so he will sign anything he'll be asked to sign.
The problem is simple. Both France and Germany have new premiers and both have to bring home a result here. France and Germany were the two countries running the EEC and both have slipped - it will be popular in both countries to get back this position of power. Meanwhile we're negotiating with one hand behind our back as Blair is neither tough nor popular and not representative of future policies and plans. Gordon should have attended - Blair was too vain to let him.
Such a lot to say.... Luckily it can be condensed into two words:Referendum Now!
I can think of one way it might be possible to get an EU treaty past a British referendum: simply campaign on the fact that the new treaty specifically sets out steps for any member to leave (I think that's the case with the document being considered), steps which don't currently exist.
We are not currently in an EU superstate; the size of the EU civil service is a tiny fraction of our own and so can hardly be (reasonably) accused of running our country for us; there are significant benefits in bargaining internationally as part of a major political and economic bloc; the EU is hardly muzzling the British press.
If any of this changes in a way that the majority of us don't like following the introduction of the treaty (which is largely trying to make sensible changes to the EU), we can simply leave. That's democracy. But currently, a majority of us want to stay, so lets stop fussing and make the EU work better.
Really, what are we worried about? That if we at last decide to withdraw, we'll suddenly wake to find ourselves surrounded by the tanks of the New Red Army? Please.
Let's get a treaty that means we can withdraw if it does all go wrong for us. Then we can relax knowing we've always got the choice.
BTW, anyone who compares the EU to the USSR is really being insulting to the intelligence of Eastern Europe.
Very very interesting comments. In a coup de main, Sarkozy turns on its head the main policy of EU, and you found some good reasons on why it is possible at this moment. What's even more interesting, is that by changing this sentence, and with the proper "promotion" Sarkozy makes the Treaty to be more easily accepted in referendums in other countries in EU as well!
In reality, nothing will change dramatically, as all directives that out there and previous court decisions will still be binding, but yes, as many ppl said, it's a nice trophy for Mr Sarkozy.
If the treaty is changed so that the free market elements are removed then it's very definitely not what the UK signed up for. We're only in the EU for the open market, everything else we can forget about. If that bit is taken out why put up with the rest of it?
Mark,
Perhaps Blair knows that the Poles are about to scupper any chance of reaching an agreement because of their red line on voting. This way it looks good if he can say: well at least i played fair and supported the French in their demands.
Why oh why cannot Blair and all the other clowns stop getting at the French and do the same as them. let us look after our own even if it means bending a few EU rules.
Look after our industry and farmers Tony
Duncan, I don't know what planet you are on when you state the majority of us want to stay within the EU because that is simply not true.I don't give two hoots about Spain, Germany and the rest, they are the responsibility of their elected politicians but I do care about my country and I am more and more convinced that the direction the EU is taking is not one we should follow. An EEC with Free Trade at its heart is as far as it should go. Our country has a richer, more valuable history and traditions than the rest of the nations in the EU put together and I do not want my children to grow up in some grey superstate whereby Free Trade only exists where it does not threaten the interests of protected industries in France, Germany etc and where our political institutions become subservient to that of an undemocratic central organisation that cannot under any circumstance purport to stand up for the interests of the people in this country. I say we look to exit now, we have given more than we have received in return and I am sick of the way we are continually treated by the rest of the EU, and they need us more than we need them, both economically and politically. The overriding sovereignty must remain within the democratically elected members of our Parliament. I am not and will never be European, there is no such identity. Co-operation, yes, integration, no, Free Trade, yes, French and German protectionism, NO.
Duncan, according to opinion polls, the majority of your fellow Britons want to get out of the EU.
Ivan - I did not vote for the EU; had I been allowed to choose, I would vote against, but I was 15 then, now I'm 19.]
David - don't like free-market-laws? You can always move to Belarus if you want. Unless Britain will be ruined by Eurocrats, Britain's GDP will continue to be bigger than France's GDP, and by 2026 it will be also bigger than Germany's GDP. Continental Europe is doomed for an economic disaster. You know, I can swap with you. I can (and will) move to Britain, you can move to Continental Europe. We'll see who will be happier.
President Sarkozy, by strickening that notion, has negotiated a good deal for his nation. It's bad for other nations but he is supposed to represent his nation, not foreign nations. He's a good president.
Those who call him a socialist don't know whom they're talking about. When he comes back to France, he will impose a tax limit (to limit the %age of French citizens' wealth the French government can tax), liberalise the labour law and repeal stupid regulations.
Is President Sarkozy sure he wants to hand over the 350 French nukes to Bozo Barroso? Because he will be required to do so if France ratifies the Euroconstitution.
Article I-12-4 gives the EU competence over defence. Articles I-12-1&2 state that if the EU has competence (power) over anything, member states do not.
Translated I-12-4 says: The EU has absolute power over foreign policy defence.
I-16-1:
The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security.
Translated, that means: The EU will have absolute power over foreign and security policy.
I-41-3: Member States shall make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy.
Translated: The EU will control our militaries.
Thomas in post 19 wrote:
I wish someone would stand up to those lunatics (I assume he means the French), and defend "free markets and undistorted competition", because that's what creates wealth and employment - not some empty "we'll be committed to full employment" rhetoric a-la Sarkozy!
Sadly I agree with him. We need 鈥渟omeone鈥 to stand up to France, not only against their nationalistic protectionism but also against one of Europe's greatest crimes which is known as the CAP.
For many years I hoped the UK would be able to get rid of Murdoch's shackles with his propaganda machine and assume a role of leadership within Europe to become that "someone".
Unfortunately, as long as the British are fed propaganda that won't allow them to move beyond the loss of their Empire, Europe won't get that much needed leadership.
Anyway, I'm sure France is happy with the way things are.
A UK engaged with Europe using its rule of law, diversity and dynamism to shape Europe and providing a competitive option to Frances' vision of protectionism, stagnation and isolationism is the last thing France wants. We all know how France feels about competition...
Thomas Patricio
Toronto Canada
Duncan (35): actually, Gorbachev himself commented a few years ago that the EU's political setup around a commission certainly had similarities with the USSR. The comparison is not crazy at all.
Why hasn't France's treachery been vetoed yet? Keep the free market principle, what are you waiting for Blair?
LOL! The EU.....what a laughing stock. The EU is about the most un-democratic institution today. Hell, it's not even a representative republic. What it has is a bunch of self appointed beauracrats in Brussels trying to run things by themselves, regardless of what sovereign countries and populations want. None of these idiots in Brussels were elected. So yes, it's far closer to the USSR than it will ever be to the U.S.
Don't even get me started on the fact that none of the member countries speak the same language or have the same interests. It's a joke of epic proportions.
To Tom:
Yes, France is one of the poorest countries in Europe now. And I know this because I happen to be French, and just like hundreds of thousands of my countrymates, I had to emigrate for a better life. And let me tell you: I have young friends all over western Europe, and no matter what country they are in, they're doing better than in France.
400,000 left France in just the past couple of years, and that's an official government figure which is most likely vastly underestimated because most people don't register their move...
As far as the statistics go: how about you drop the eastern European countries from the average, and adjust for purchasing power? Let's see what the numbers would be!
Also, you need to understand how unfair the French economy is to the youth, which are employed at half the wage of their elders (which can't be fired). Let's see how much of that GDP/capita will still be there once those in their 40s and 50s retire???
I grew up in France, so I had a front row seat to witness La Decadence in my home city:
- 1980's: there was one homeless man in town, everybody knew his name, he wouldn't accept charity
- 1990's: tens, then later, hundreds of homeless people (usually in their 40s), most would work or beg for money
- 2000's: thousands of homeless people, more and more homeless young people in their 20s using dogs for protection, demanding money and getting violent if they don't get anything
The same downword spiral goes for racism and violence, which have increased tremendously since the 1980s.
There is a sense of urgency in France (which is what got Sarkozy elected), that can only be explained if you actually live there and see things getting worse every year!
You know statistics from the IMF can't tell you the whole story..
With "Free Trade" and "Competition" being removed from the treaty we are at last getting near the truth!
The French and Germans are only interested in free trade and competition when it suits their own interests.
Can you imagine the French allowing a UK company to buy over even part fo their energy or water industries?
What a charade the EU is!
Thomas wrote:
Due to the French senseless leftist ideology, France has gone from one of the richest country in the EU, down to one of the poorest.
OK Thomas (don't know where you get your information from - but here are the GDP figures)
European Union 13,111,389
United States 12,229,276
People's Republic of China 8,817,3941
Germany 2,436,004
United Kingdom 2,006,078
France 1,835,696
Italy 1,713,399
Spain 1,140,929
Poland 524,435
Making things up again?
Does Sarkozy's performance at this summit mean that any hopes of a new approach from France following his election are already proving to be hollow? He seems to be pandering to the usual French beefing about the horrible "Anglo-Saxon" model of ruthless capitalism, and all that riduculous stereotyping which belittles political discourse in France. Has he already lost the will to challenge the French people to accept the kinds of reforms that most other European countries are already putting into practice? Was he not elected on a platform of change, of facing up to the root causes of France's problems? Yet at this early EU outing he seems to be slipping into the familiar, tiresome French mould of bashing liberalism, competition and all the other things that make for a vibrant economy. Is France going to continue to be the main block to the EU's ambitions to be a vibrant, successful economy? It's dissapointing. Or have I misunderstood. Is this just a sop to reassure French sceptics before he launches an ambitious programme to bring France out of its malaise? I hope so.
Ok -so the British have been sold another pup by the perfidious Europeans -but before screaming again like stuck pigs -scould somebody please explain what is so fantastic about the "free market" that the british and their American masters are so fond of?
I lived in Holland (the cartel center of Europe) for 30 years -and i often felt that I was visiting a third world country when visiting Britain.
Ray Perkins wrote: "The truth is that the "market failures" that are often bleated about,are a whole lot less common than political failures". Indeed, this is the religious dogma -but where is the empirical proof of this "truth"? If France is indeed 9% above average economically -and anti-freemarket then how is this possible?
Nothing stops a few EU countries to create the United States of Europe or the Federal Republic of Europe and as a country remain a member of the EU.
Europe can鈥檛 face and compete with China, India, Russia, Japan and the US without a single and independent economic and foreign policies and the present EU with 27 countries and growing, will not achieve it.
The next generation better informed of the risks and uselessness of being nationals of small and 鈥渢oothless鈥 countries will take the step in time to come.
I can't believe that most of the Europeans are "stupid".
As a Greek 22 year old post grad student of politics and economics in the UK, my view is that a federal Europe is the optimum solution for the future. Considering the rise of the eastern powers and the diminishing of the American 'empire' there is a gap in which a federal Europe can very easily step in and gain control. In order to survive in a capitalistic environment power is required in order to gain control, the best way to attain it is to be united. Let鈥檚 not forget the power games that are already starting to take place involving the control of alternative energy solutions. A united federal Europe will be more agile and definitely more effective in its actions. After all, I feel that nationalistic views in the young generations are very weak; as a result the prospect of a very powerful federation with states that are integrated but haven't lost their identities will be welcomed in the long run.
As a Dutchman living long-term in the US it has been interesting to watch the EU's transition. I can't believe that anything more than a loose federation will ever be achieved, perhaps with a "platform" constitution to be shared by the participating nations. Unlike the US there is far too much diversity for a tight federation. The EU should concentrate on economic unity, not cultural homogeneity. From a personal perspective I believe the European preference for quality over quantity is admirable and it should continue to resist the Anglo-Saxon model that prizes individual success above all else.
We DO need a Federal State of Europe.
If only to stand up to American Expansionism (Bullying) Remember that America has only ever been an ally when it benefited the US and is quite willing to leave the UK in the lurch for it鈥檚 own convenience (i.e. Suez)
And to the Little Britionists; If a UK County wanted to instigate policies that were detrimental to the greater UK they would be soundly criticised. We must learn to support the greater good of Europe.