Tim Worstall links to a rather annoyinglecture given by Philip Stephens of the Financial Times in honour of deceased Grauniad political hack Hugo Young. In it Phil seems to confuse Europe, the EU (as it is today) and its former guise the EEC. There is certainly benefit in Britain having a positive relationship with our European neighbours. There is almost certainly benefit in having free trade in goods and services etc. with our European neigbours, and it makes sense that we should do our best to influence our neighbours as well as trade with them. However there is nothing that says that these benefits are automatically increased if we become part of a United States of Europe. In his very excellent and thought provoking book "Kicking the Sacred Cow", James P Hogan freqently refers to the famous saying by Paracelsus that "The Dose Makes the Poison". I see no reason why the same should not apply to the integration and union of European states.
It is true that Britain and the British have an ambivalent attitude to Europe, but this is not as unique as he claims, many of the Nordic and Eastern European members of the EU demonstrate a similar ambivalence. He claims the French do not, I think that is simply because the French, particularly the French elite who rule and run the media, consider Europe to be run in the sole interests of France. Given the general lack of sanction that occurs when the French ignore those parts of EU law that go against their wishes there seems to be some truth in that and hence it is not exactly surprising that they are in favour of the EU and "Europe".
This means that he deludes himself and his audience when he says:
Looking back we can see that the Maastricht Treaty represented the high water mark of federalist ambition. There has been nothing since comparable to the Single European Act negotiated by Margaret Thatcher.
Enlargement to a Union of 25 has changed irreversibly the political geography of the Union. The Franco-German alliance is no longer sufficient to drive greater integration. And for all the faux alarmism of its opponents, the constitutional treaty codifies and entrenches the balance between the acquis communitaire and the intergovernmentalism promoted by Britain.
It is true that enlargement has challenged French aspirations to dominate the EU but that does not mean they will not try to do continue doing so. The EU constitution and its friends and relatives such as Human Rights law seem to me to be a way that theDirigistes - i.e. France and close allies - can somehow neuter the open markets and free-trade parts of the EU by tying the whole think up in red tape
He is quite correct when he says that many things could be better solved on a European wide basis, this is in fact why I remain in favour of the concept of the EU. Unfortunately he fails to follow through and admit that the current policies of the EU will not in fact solve the problems that the EU faces, but rather seem likely to exacerbate them. This is exactly where most Europhiles go wrong because they confuse the potential with the real.
If the choice were between limited success for Britain alone and greater success for Britain in conjunction with Europe the choice would be obvious but to me it seems more accurate to say that the choice is between limited success for Britain alone and total disaster for Britain in conjunction with Europe and ceterum censeo Unionem Europaeam esse delendam.