I assure you: After the next elections in France (after Chirac's gone), after the next elections in Germany (after Schroeder's gone) and with the votes of the 10 new states, Europe will be a nation within the next 10 years. The UK will obviously be out of this project, but we all see the UK more as the american ally than as a full european member. too much nationalism on the island.

I beleive it was E.F. Schumacher (probably quoting someone else) who said: "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." I think the only thing we can be certain of is that in the world in 30 years timet here will be many things that seem pretty much the same and many things that will be unrecognisable and that very few of us will have predicted them correctly. It seems reasonable to me that either Ursa's future or jorge's could result, and this depends on many things not least of which whether either situation (or some other configuration) better serves environmental-economic purposes (and how that balance is resolved and in whose favour) - and of course whether people want it: George Monbiot (I hope) is right to suggest that we may finally be entering an age of consent...

The modern nation state only existed as a soverign concept since 1648. Nation-states are not carved in stone. One hundred years ago the people of Europe belonged to a dozern states, today they belong to 30 plus. The number of nationalities remains concistent. It seems to me that since ancient Greece the idea of 'Europe' has existed, therefore making it an older concept than national identities. As many people of my generation readily admit to having a European identity that has parity if not superiority over their national identity, I would happily say that European unity is very real and very possible if not probable.

I do not desire a 'nation of europe', merely a state. The UK has within it at least four nations, really much more than that, I'd like to see the same principle applied to Europe as a whole. You are right that certainly the early Greeks considered 'Europe' to be a geographical term, but the later Greeks attached a cultural meaning. Ptolomey was from Alexandria, but there was no doubt in his mind that he was a Greek (European). The Trojan war and the myth of Europa have been used as metaphores regarding Europe vs Asia. The new Europe will be formed from the top down, simply because the great mass of people don't care as long as there is peace and prosperity, which there is thanks to the process of ever closer union. I don't claim that this is foolprooth, but considering the alternative was a dismal failure for 1600 years I say we give it a try.

Why do you say that a state of Europe would be rife with conflict? What is the basis for this claim?

Have you ever considered why the Eastern European nations were so keen to join the EU? Well, clearly not.

Actually Ursa has a point. The problem with the EU as at present constituted is that it is very much a 'top down organization', indeed a previous post said exactly that. The trouble is that when you force, coerce - call it what you will - people into a 'Union' against their will it ends in disaster. Look at Yugoslavia. And just what is the point of the European Union ? The world has moved on since it was founded and may be it is not relevant today, or at least in its present form. Part of its reason for being was to bind France and Germany together so war between them - and there had been three wars between them in less than a hundred years - an impossibility. That balance has shifted with reunification and now the centre of gravity for the union has moved east, more towards Berlin than Paris. From a British perspective it is a pity we ever joined it in the first place. It does not suit us, nor frankly are we really wanted by our continental partners. There are different histories and traditions which no amount of junket can mask and eventually this fact will have to be faced. May be that moment has arrived with the constitution which I for one sincerely hope is rejected.

What annoys me the most is the complete amnesia in terms of history that the British pro-EU lobby seem to have. The British press as well as the politicians are the worst offenders when they refer to our European neighbours as our allies and partners. They are neither of these things, they are our past enemies who now happen to be at peace with us. They are our neighbours and that is all and with their track record should be kept at arms length at all times combined with being held with deep suspicion. This won't happen of course as we are governed by traitors and silly doves. By all means trade with them, but that is as far as it should go. The Channel Tunnel should be destroyed - tomorrow, if I had my way.

Thank you for your reply. My views on Europe and all things European are, generally, those things are fine for Europe. The British people especially the English are not European. Churchill was pro Common Market as far as trade was concerned and pro EU for them. Not for us though. The Imperial thing along with superiority I do not deny, but it goes much deeper than that and mistrust is one of them. I will also go back to Henry VIII and Elizabeth 1, not sixty years. Europe is predominantly Papist and there lies the rub. Rome refers to the Anglican Church as the Anglican Communion and has never recognised the break away church as independent. In other words the Armada issue has never been resolved as far they're concerned. The disappearance of borders is just papering over the cracks, there are still the old animosities lying under the surface. The Dutch, Belgians and French still feel the same way toward each other. Germans consider the Italians a joke. I'll ask you a question Capfka: Are the Germans any less arrogant than they were sixty five years ago? These are national traits, they're ingrained in the national psyche of the differing nations. Suppression or denial of these identities by utopianists, as Yugoslavia showed, just builds up 'hatred volcanoes' which erupt at the first opportunity. Britain has long sought the benefits of the EU but I'm afraid there have not been any. We are too legalistic to be members, we dot every i and cross every t mostly to our own detriment. The French just say b*****ks and ignore Brussel's laws. The CAP is a disaster for our farmers and our fishing fleet has been destroyed. Our financial contributions over the years have brought Spain out of the third world and into being a thriving economy. We import from the EU far more than they buy from us. When we joined the ERM it was a national financial debacle. Why should we have a repentant attitude towards the Empire? If I had my way we would still have an Empire and then Africa would not be the hell hole that it now is including the latest mess in the Sudan. As for our economy, it is only as good as it is because of North Sea oil and gas. Our manufacturing and other wealth creators are gone. The future I fear is not so rosy. If the financial centre shifts to Frankfurt we'll be finished, and the Pope will move in to Buckingham Palace.

You are right, there is no comparison between the USA and Europe. The USA is populated in the main by those wishing to leave, and have left their 'homelands' mostly because they were given a rough time there. These new immigrants wanted a new start and to become Americans first and foremost. States in the USA are like our counties in the UK all with their own dialects and characteristics, but we're all English just as all people of the USA are Americans. You cannot say that of Europe. These are independent sovereign nation states, it is like trying to amalgamate a pride of lions with a herd of elephants. They are not compatible and it will all end in an horrendous disaster. I know I have read THE Book. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that here in the UK the majority of British people want out of Europe, but what you never here about is the anti lobbies in France, Germany, Poland and all the others. I wonder why?

Mr Clegg, I think you are making the error of confusing politics with culture. It is a common enough error, in all conscience. Not being a native of any of the countries involved in the EU, I believe I can at least be objective about them. The British are, in fact, as arrogant as the Germans - where this arrogance actually exists of course, and it is less obvious than it was, say, 20 years ago. The arrogance, perhaps better described as overt nationalism, is triggered by different issues in both cases, but it is there nonetheless. You can have hardly failed to notice the increasing prevalence of English flags (the St George cross) when any international sporting event is on in which England, as opposed to Great Britain, is a participant. The Union Jack has been very much sidelined or is reserved in the main for supranational events. There has been a resurgence of English nationalism in the past few years which is ... interesting. It is perhaps even understandable in the face of overt and often strident Welsh and Scottish nationalism. Having said that, the French (bless their little Gallic cotton socks) are less chauvinistic than they were when I first encountered them a couple of decades – well, let’s say three – ago. I have been working closely with a number of well-educated French people recently, and they are all at least mild europhiles. I've asked them about this, and they are quite categoric: Their view is that the French government has been ripping them off in various ways for years, and the EU is helping to put the brakes on that. Of course, most of France is still rural, and I haven’t the foggiest notion of what people in the countryside think, although one French friend of mine from the Languedoc assures me that the people from his village, about 20km from Montpellier, are pro-EU. The French, to my surprise, seem to be more interested in political unity within the EU than anyone else I've encountered. They’re probably sick of being invaded … I haven’t spoken about this to any Poles, however. Nonetheless, and notwithstanding the so-called "constitution", political unity is still a long way off from what I have seen and heard. Cultural changes have occurred, yes, and people are less nationalistic than they were, even the Germans. But the degree of that change is still not great enough for anyone I've spoken to about it to swallow subsuming their national identity completely into the idea of a Federal Republic of Europe. Good grief, Britain, Sweden and Denmark won't even move to the common currency. Additionally, two dirty little stopouts, Britain and Denmark, haven’t signed up to the Schengen Agreement which would scrap their common borders with other EU countries. It is rather noticeable, of course, that Britain features in both the “won’t”s. I'm still not sure what medium to long-term effects the inclusion of the "new entrants" to the EU will have politically. Economically, it was probably not the best move that Europe could have made. All of the new entrants are economically underdeveloped, and, in fact, in a couple of isntances are pretty much basket cases. And, as Germany has found out since it reabsorbed the Ostmark and began to rebuild the east’s infrastructure, it's an expensive - and perhaps hopeless - task to try to change that. It's certainly a thankless task. What would Europe gain from becoming one large political entity? Most of the non-political benefits are economic, and these are gained (or more correctly, could be gained) by doing more of what the EU has been doing. Yes, the CAP is rubbish and should be scrapped or redesigned to put in on some realistic basis, but the fishing industry is in decline along with the fish stocks, not because the Brussels bureacrats "don't like fishermen". But for all the bad things, what about the good? Freedom to move and work anywhere within a much larger economic unit benefits people individually. The ability to move raw materials and IP internally and externally without having to worry about borders and the costs associated with them (such as duties) helps at an industry level. The reduced administration costs possible because of the removal of borders has galvanised the travel industry – look at the low cost airlines, for instance. It cost me a grand total of £50 to fly to Munich return for a holiday last year. That’s almost ridiculous. There are lots of pluses and I believe that they must eventually outweigh the minuses, if they don’t already. Europe as an economic power has a level of clout in the world which the individual countries within it, even Britain, could never exercise on their own. And Europe is more acceptable to many of the former colonies (of all EU countries) as a major economic partner than either its constituent countries or the US. Europeans, for all their faults, actually understand the people they deal with outside their national borders, partly because of the EU, partly because of the experience of other cultures they gained from 19th/20th century colonialism, and partly because not all of their notions are preconceived from sterile navel-gazing exercises.. It’s becoming increasingly hard for anyone outside the US to understand the US, of course. I find your support for colonialism interesting, particularly since one of the reasons for its collapse was a recognition by the colonial powers that the game wasn’t worth the candle either politically or economically. Colonialism still exists, of course, but in most cases nowadays it is rather a matter of economic dependence rather than political dominance. The days when a few white men could lord it over millions of black people are long gone, along with the circumstances which created and supported that kind of colonialism. The world has moved on. I also find your implied assumption that the only worthwhile ethic is the Western one interesting. Do you really think our way is objectively better than any other? I wouldn’t be so sure. You mention the influence of the Catholic church again, and use the emotive and derogatory term “Papist” to describe it. When I see slurs like that, I smell burning faggots and human flesh, and it pleaseth me not. I care nothing for what one sect or the other believes, or what they think of each other. You are, I gather, an evangelical Anglican of the charismatic stamp. That’s fine, but please don’t mix economics and religion in the one set of argments. It doesn’t work. If you want to see how religious belief distorts politics and economics, look at American policy under Bush II or late TwenCen Middle Eastern politics. They are an explosive, divisive and very, very dangerous mix. Perhaps more germanely, I don’t subscribe to your premise that the Catholic church is able to influence events in Europe to any great extent. The days when a cardinal sat alongside every political leader in southern Europe and whispered in his (or her) ear are long gone. Can you imagine people like Berlusconi or Chirac listening to anyone but themselves or, if they really have to, their electorates? I think that the rampant protestant fundamentalism which seems to be increasingly gripping the US is much more likely to have long term negative effects worldwide.

Mr Clegg: You said: My only reply to you is, how many times does history have to repeat itself, before people learn. Every major attempt at world domination from Constantine to Hitler has stemmed from Rome, wake up Capfka. I assure you I am quite awake, thank you. Constantine converted to Christianity on his deathbed and, in fact, did not try to dominate the world, at least no more than any of his predecessors. And I fail to see how Hitler's rise stemmed in any way from the Vatican, except in that the Vatican was too scared to stand up to him. I am absolutely certain that Hitler wouldn't have given a fig about what the Pope thought. You then said: Economics and religion? What do you think the abolition of the monasteries was all about Capfka? I now have to admit even more confusion. The dissolution of the monasteries was simply Henrician politics and economics and had nothing to do with religion per se. When an organisation - religious or otherwise - owns and enjoys the revenues from some 10% of your country and you have just disavowed that organisation and replaced it with your own, you don't leave it to just get on with things. And Henry lusted after the land and the RC church's wealth. I am, at best, an agnostic and I hold no brief for any church. But I grieve for the history that was destroyed along with the buildings and fabric of the monastic culture in Britain just as I grieve for the destruction of many of the magnificent mediaeval castles and fortified country houses that the Parliamentarians destroyed after the Civil War.