Spin it whichever way you will, gentlemen, but my point remains the same.

Ian, you appear to accept that "there is a certain power struggle between our states and our Australian federation", but proceed to wash over the realities of this in your eagerness to promote the fact that "we [CANZ] are already part of one cultural family".

We have regular, and massive arguments between the States as to who is allowed to do what - witness the current unseemly dog-in-the-manger approach to a national water policy. I suspect there will be similar battles over the environment when that little hobby-horse turns into a full-blown political weapon.

>>The trick, as always, would be finding the balance so that decisions are taken at the most effective level: what the EU calls subsidiarity but fails utterly to implement.<<

You have very cleverly insinuated that the basic reason for this failure is "EU countries have mutually contradictory values and institutions and are, in many cases, ancient enemies." I suggest that this is simply a convenient catch-all for the failure to harmonize the expectations of any given set of states, countries or even regions-within-countries. That they are traditional enemies actually means squat to the individual citizen.

People simply don't work this way. As Thoreau pointed out, "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation". Making grand plans on their behalf to attach them to one artificial political construct or another is bound to fail. Not only that, but will cause resentment against the body that enforces the plan.

We consistently fail to demonstrate, even to ourselves, that we are a genuine federation. The continuous posturing and powermongering shows to the citizen the absolute worst aspects of political game-playing, and they are extremely unlikely to trust a politician - State or Federal - who tells them "forget about the fact we can't solve our domestic inter-State problems, let's become part of an even larger configuration of self-indulgent, self-obsessed and self-interest-driven political geographies."

Sorry, it won't fly. And for all the right reasons.

Ted, being a Eurosceptic is a popular pastime in the UK at the moment, as they stagger towards the end of the piss-weak Blair government, one that has consistently and wilfully abrogated to Brussels its responsibility to govern the country.

You must also understand the impact on the British psyche of Blair's other creations, the Welsh and Scottish assemblies, and the weary cynicism that those bureaucratic monsters engender. It is hardly surprising that UKIP was created to take advantage of the power vacuum that Blair so casually and naively created. Watch closely too for the aftermath of the Scottish elections in May, should the Scot Nats gain ground. An "English Assembly" would then become a real possibility, as opposed to a background grumble.

Yet in the face of all this, you are proposing CANZUK.

You must have an absolutely monumental faith in the ability of a super-federal government to address not only these little "local difficulties", but also Quebec, Motuhake o Aotearoa and the sharing out of States' GST loot, to name but a few.

I'm not sure about your argument "Nothing is done by fiat. In fact the EU is constructed so that smaller nations can not be bullied" either. This is a major sovereignty issue, where the weighted votes of smaller countries, allied with the inertia of some larger members, maintain a corrupt and unfair agricultural policy.

There is also the problem of details like Article 308, which could be used by a government to enact legislation through the EC that they could not get away with in their own country. The most likely use of this, incidentally, would be for so-called "environmental" legislation, which has both an international feelgood factor, and an unpredictable impact on individual economies.

Ian, as a teacher you offer an academic and logical approach to the issue, thinking positively of the joining of similars, where I see the negatives of trying to glue together folks with entirely different aspirations.

There is nothing wrong with idealism, it can both shed light and open doors. But I still feel this is a dream too far.

Pericles,
Our ancestors made something like this happen once, so I don’t see why it couldn’t happen again, but I am under no illusions as to the likelihood of it actually coming to pass. I accept that there are serious problems with our existing federation, but I don’t think I see it as quite so much of a failure as you do. I also don’t think we need to solve all our existing problems before embracing new ones. (Feel free to shake your head in dismay at this point.)

Just to close, since I’m sure we have said all we need to on the subject, I have always accepted that if this federation business doesn’t happen from the ground up, then it doesn’t happen at all. When you say that people will resent any body that forces them into a grand plan, I quite agree with you. If the result of my talking about these ideas is that more people think it’s all a load of rubbish, so be it.

Pericles you should know that eurosceptism is not restricted to UK it is very strong in France. There is a feeling that it is going to fast. However they all face the same problem, how to reap the myriad of ecomonic and social benefits flowing from the EU without being in it. Of course this cannot be done. They whinge but they do not leave. There is always dissent in groups from families, to nations, to federations and beyond. This is a good thing, the constant examination keeps it alive. Federation is a process not a thing. Nominalization of verbs is a tragic thing. See what happens to your relationship with your parenter when you stop relating. Dead meat.
We should stop the endless stonwalling and get on with the job of creating structures that increase well being and freedom instead of fluffing about trying to sustain outdated tribal groupings. First union with the kiwis. Singapore would be nice but it would take time if it is possible. A hundred years from my great grand children could be living in SPU.

Ted, the problem that the Eurosceptics face is, indeed, that it is more difficult to unravel a political alliance than it is to put one together. Making an omelette requires a modicum of skill, but nothing compared to the challenge of recovering whole eggs from the end result.

But I have to take issue with you on the statement:

>>they all face the same problem, how to reap the myriad of economic and social benefits flowing from the EU without being in it<<

My understanding of their falling out of love with the EU is that while there may be the kind of economic advantages associated with any trading bloc, it patently does not bring "social benefits".

And sometime it creates most unwelcome "social benefits", such as a sudden influx of immigrant workers an order of magnitude greater than that which was forecast.

"The UK was one of the three countries, along with Ireland and Sweden, to place no restrictions on workers from the 2004 entrants... After an unexpectedly large influx of workers from Central Europe - an estimated 600,000 in two years - the UK announced that it would impose restrictions on workers from Bulgaria and Romania." Source: BBC

The original government estimate? 15,000 a year.

In fact, this level of immigration has a positive impact on the economy. They keep wages down, driving down costs in areas as diverse as road construction and domestic plumbing services. According to the CBI "Immigrant workers comprise eight per cent of the workforce but ten per cent of the UK's Gross Domestic Product"

However, none of the above resonates with my 85 year-old mother (or even my mythical 86 year-old grandmother).

She won't be convinced that she should think in terms of "creating structures that increase well being and freedom instead of fluffing about trying to sustain outdated tribal groupings."

She still thinks that her "tribal grouping" has been going to hell in a handbasket since they joined the Common Market.

Let me list a few of the advantages of the EU, advantages that may eventually available in a SPU.
More even distribution of wealth.
Greater quality of life than Us since early 1990s.
Longer holidays, US get only 2 weeks a year non mandated. Shorter working week leading to more family time.
A Social support system that reduces imprisonment. In US 2% of the work force are in gaol at huge expense to the tax payer and yet the homicide rate is 4 times higher.
A population that saves compared with massive consumer debt in US. In Europe only the UK has the distiction of spending 120% of its income.
Stronger currency, the euro, the one that was going to be toilet paper in 6 months.
This info is lifted from Jemery Rifkins speech at www. siemens/horizons2020 have a read you might learn something.
News to hand on www.nhne shows that the carcinogen paradioxane is present in baby shampoo in the US but this is not allowed in Europe where there is more evironmental protection.
Is the EU prefect? Far from it but with 61 of 100 largest businesses and 14 of the top 20 banks they ain't so shabby. It is a good model to start with but start we must or be left in the dust scrambbling for a seat with whoever will take us.