I get the open border thing, I just question the attempt to standardize the legal systems. This may work between say France and Belgium, but the English legal system is a completely different matter and I can't imagine what is to be gained on that side of the channel from receiving "guidance" from the continent. ( of course this is coming from somebody who learned at his grandmother's knee that "East of Calais there be dragons" ( thats dragOn of course :-)

I think it is a question of legal cultures and traditions as much as the letter of the law. Conquest makes the arguement that US, Britain, Canada, Australia, NZ should form a Union. There are already cultural and legal commonalities that make sense. Not sure if that is feasible, but it certainly makes as much sense as Britain being in the EU.


>>>I agree Charles, however, free trade only works if it is fair free trade for all. Somehow good ideas seldom get implemented fairly.
>>>
>>Quite true. See my comment to Dragan referencing Adam Smith. That is why Conquest makes the arguement that political union - or at least consensus - must logically precede economic union - whereas the EU approach has been that economic union will lead to political union. The framework of law and consensus must be there before you have what is needed for real open markets.
>
>While I'm no expert on EU, I think they actually had too many legal frameworks and too many markets to start with, so the political union had to begin with the simplification of the framework. Also it probably was a big selling point for the masses. I've seen how border crossing looked between Netherlands and Germany 30 years ago - when I traveled on a train, I had to have a long chat with the Dutch border officer; on the way back, I was in a car with German plates, and the guy in the booth just nodded. Didn't even bother to wave us through.