If I lived where my ancestors came from, in Scotland, I would be preparing to vote against the EU Constitution and would be very pleased with the signs of likely no votes from the French and the Dutch in the very near future.

I would also be keen to resist any moves towards a European superstate. I would have no objection at all to the free trade aspects of the EU, but I would fail to see why the same benefits could not be achieved through membership of EFTA.

In fact, I would be wondering why on earth the decision was ever made to sacrifice close ties with the Commonwealth countries that have essentially the same institutions and values, in order to dive into an EU that is based, as this article clearly demonstrates, on very different understandings of the relationship between society and state.

Like my friends in the Federal Commonwealth Society, I would be far more keen to form a federation with Australia, New Zealand and Canada than with France, Poland and Bulgaria.

Ian clearly identifies the problem. The EU is an economic vehicle that is trying to trancend a cultural terrain.

If a group cannot even acknowledge an issue such as the role of Christianity in its past (and future?) then what hope of setting up a reigning polity?

Whilst it doesn't explicit state it, the common law is based on a shared religion & moral basis that has carried into Commonwealth Countries. This would equate to an easier 'amalgamation' and common purpose agenda.

This is one of the most fascinating political topics on the planet today, and thanks to Richard Bellamy for a well-expressed explanation of the issues. It goes to the heart of a topic upon which everyone has an opinion, but no-one a definitive answer.. what constitutes a nation-state? Is it borders, religion, language, economy, what?

There is hardly a country left in the world that isn't a hybrid of all of these. Many borders in Europe have changed many times, even in the last century. Religion grow and fade, to be replaced by others, within the same physical borders. "Nationals" of any given land will not necessarily share the same first language, and more than likely there will be areas that are specifically dual-signposted (every major Western city has its Chinatown).

Even so-called stable democracies have their identity crises - England is presently exercised by the fact that while Scotland has its own parliament, Scottish MPs still vote on purely English issues in Westminster.

I have to agree with Mr Bellamy, that the attempts to forge a Europe that has a single political voice is pointless, but more than that, it has the potential to be extremely dangerous as the various sovereign nations bicker over the finer points. Once you get beneath the warm and fuzzy rhetoric, there are some fairly divisive issues that will need to be addressed, and the danger is that these will be grandly swept aside in favour of the dream.

The Australian slant is, of course, where would we actually fit in the picture if Westminster suddenly became subservient to a legal structure that we have no say in?