Single market, competition & trade

It will be left to future historians to appreciate fully the significance of the Lisbon Summit of March 2000 in the economic evolution of Europe. But it is already possible to argue that its impact could be even more farreaching than that of the euro.

At the 'dot.com' Summit AT Lisbon in March 2000, the EU set itself the strategic goal of creating full employment in a competitive and inclusive knowledge-based economy.

The paradox of trade policy is that, at a time when political leaders in most parts of the world have accepted the intellectual case for trade liberalisation more thoroughly than ever before, public opposition to free trade is on the rise.

The collapse of the Seattle meeting of the World Trade Organisation in December 1999 was a blow to the EU, which had first proposed the idea of a "millennium round" of trade liberalisation.

The European Union's political leaders have great ambitions for the years ahead: a successful economic and monetary union, a coherent and effective foreign policy, and the accession of up to 12 new member-states.

The claim may seem perverse, when the euro has barely crawled off its record lows, but there is a good case for saying that America rather than Euroland faces a looming currency crisis.

Slowly, and somewhat reluctantly, the EU is beginning to embrace economic reform. For years America's equity-orientated, shareholder-value-driven economic model appeared anathema to much of the continent.

Europe's citizens, generally speaking, do not want their taxes set by Brussels. Taxation and representation still go hand in hand. So it is safe to assume that so long as people continue to look to their national governments to represent their interests (and turn out to vote for their national politicians in greater numbers than for MEPs), they will reject the notion of taxation policies being decided at European Union level.