Different economic rates of development, patterns of economic activity and rates of growth mean that the existence of the EU becomes problematic in the long run. And it was consequently clear from its inception that in the long run a federal structure would be required for the EU. To reconcile growing divergences in the economic interests of member states. The current economic crisis has turned a long run requirement into a current political necessity. For the EU its now either federation or disintegration. P.S. the indifference/hostility of British governments has been a prime factor in restricting moves towards a federal Europe. And has consequently proved a huge force for the dissolution of the EU.

Nigel forgets that nobody has the obligation to be a member state of the E.U. All the opposite, it was the U.K., or Spain, or many other nations (including Morocco) the ones which applied for membership. If any nation doesn´t want to be part of the club, it can leave....but they don´t leave because it is a large Market with many advantages. EFTA broke-up and most of its member states did join the E.U. The COMECON broke-up and most of its member states did join the E.U. So if any other F.T.A. suceeds (for example the Eurasian Community created by the Russian Federation) then the E.U would break-up and some of its member states will join that new economic area. Perhaps Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania (Orthodox countries) one day decide to join the an economic block headed by the Russian Federation...but for now the E.U: looks more attractive and that is why the Balkan states did prefer to join it. Even Ukraine, which is one of the nations more similar to Russia by history, ethnicity and language, feels more attaction towards the E.U. economy as it is seven times larger than the Russian economy. Even Russia itself in the future will be a kind of Canada for the E.U. with a Customs Union and F.T.A. while Turkey is a kind of Mexico for the E.U. Who knows, there is no obligation to belong to the European Union but the queue to join the E.U. is long....and that is a demonstration of its succees.

@Enrique Perhaps not with Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania but surely a pan-Slavic Union with Russia, Belarus, Ukraine (Orthodox part),Serbia, Bulgaria, Crna Gora. All those countries are Slavic and all Orthodox. That would work cause same origins, religion and even similar languages! As for EU - I have not doubt that they'll get rid of UK sooner or later (if EU doesn't fall apart before that) Only possible and viable EU in the future would be with much less countries.... Built around French-German unification as core with few big EU Catholic countries on top like Spain &Italy and German satellite countries like Austria, Slovenia, and Croatia and perhaps Czech and Hungarians also. That would correspond historically territory with Holy Roman Empire under Charles the Great Just more enlarged on Spain and little bit more on the east also That would make huge, solid Catholic country . Traditionalist country, related with similar culture & tradition. As for your comment on Russia I can only smile on: - "Russia itself in the future will be a kind of Canada for the E.U." I doubt that Russia will ever accept role of submission to E.U.in any aspect or option.(not to mention that Russia has brighter future than EU already) European arrogance has made you forget that Russia is so huge that it is ideally placed to make connection between Europe and Asia (China) and really Russia doesn't need Europe that much.... but I wouldn't be surprised that Europe needs in future Russia more than opposite (specially for the resources). In fact I think that Russian politics at the moment is to much turned to EU and not enough to Asia where true growth is happening. West is dying

jako, First, remember that part of Spain (the regions of Catalonia, Aragon and Navarre) were already part of the Holy Roman Empire of Charles the Great (Charlemagne), King of the Franks. Second, I agree with you that Russia has a bright future and it is placed in the right place between the largest World Economy right now (the E.U.) and the largest emerging nation (China) Until now, however, Eujropean Russia has increased its participation in Russia´s economy and population while Siberia has decreased. The 40 million Central District of the Russian Federation around Moscow already represents a third of the Russian economy and almost a third of its population. Even if in the short term that concentration of human and economic resources is good to created a Hub for the whole nation where new technology can develop and can attract corporations and build a World class infraestructure, for the future in my opinion the capital of Russia could be Yekaterinburg, which is placed close enough to the Central District, St. Petersbourg and the Caucausus...and at the same time is part of Siberia and close to Astana (Kazakhstan) and to Eastern China. Creating a new capital, a new Hub around Yekaterinbourg or another West Siberian city will change the perception the Russian elite have about the Russian Federation and will help adapt to the emerging markets in Asia.

Nigel Farage is a kind of British Vladimir Zhirinovsky – more accomplished and of a somewhat more balanced personality for sure, but only slightly less rude and only slightly less extreme in his views. No doubt the RT article represents Farage’s viewpoint accurately. But it is misleading if the article is meant to imply that even one EU member state thinks that a break-up of the EU was good for it. Any country where a majority of citizens think this would elect a government that would give effect to such wishes – and none have. Quite to the contrary, countries are still lining up trying to join the EU. The fact of EU’s existence annoys Russia because it makes it impossible for Moscow to pressure and pick off its smaller neighbours one-by-one like it used to do before. Hence this kind of article that we see in RT. Everyone knows what Europe was like before the EU and before NATO, and no one, not even Russia, thinks that was good. Thanks to the influence of these organisations, Europe is more secure than it has ever been probably since the Roman Empire, and Russia’s border with Europe, despite Moscow’s frequent anti-NATO rhetoric, is both the most secure of all of Russia’s boundaries, and more secure than ever before in history.

To JAKO - I agree with you that sooner or later EU will be splitted (and perhaps that will be better) and that Russia is and will be stronger than EU or the European countries, but I do not agree about the fact that the Russian Federation is too much turned on EU and not to Asia. I do not think that the Asiatic countries will be ever so friendly to Russia. To MARZIPAN -It is not the EU that makes impossible for Moscow to make pressure on its neighbours, but (one can like it or not) the American military power. Moreover, Western Europeans could not care less about the future of small eastern European countries; they have their own bigger problems to solve; if things go on like now, all European politics and civilization will collapse. And, if unluckily that will happen and you will not have a strong American support, I am sorry, but you will have to pray Russians for help.

To Silvia: American power was unchanged before and after Russia’s invasion of Georgia, a member of neither the EU and NATO. Georgia’s isolation from the structures of Europe emboldened Russia, and confirms why most East European countries either have or seek membership within those structures. Of course Western European countries won’t sacrifice their own national interests to save East European countries from Russia’s fraternal attentions – all countries are concerned primarily with their own national interests, and rightly so. But it is in Western interests that the territorial and political integrity of the EU and NATO be respected by Russia, else those organisations become meaningless and Western interests will then be harmed. The West will do whatever it takes to maintain the credibility of the EU and NATO. For Russia, aggression against one member country will evoke consequences not just from that one country, but from the whole alliance This will damage Russian interests even short of military retaliation, giving Russia good motivation to keep its imperialist twitches in some sort of check in regard to alliance members. Silvia confidently predicts a Europan and American collapse. Free societies have the resilience to respond to circumstances rationally; history shows that unfree societies are able to respond only within the straightjacket of established political dogma or in accordance with the narrow interests of a narrow ruling clique. It is those second kind of societies, not the first, that are in danger of collapse, and that have, in fact, collapsed time and again through history, the most recent example example being Russia’s own latest collapse still less than 20 years ago. Since then, Russia has not progressed into democracy, but is inching its way back towards undemocratic norms. Such values lead to the same outcome as they always have through history.

To Marzipan -'Of course it is normal that Eastern European countries seek alliances for their security. The problem is that in the EU there is a sufficient degree of economic freedom (so far), but very little political and cultural freedom. Nobody knows who is really ruling it (world economic powers?); certainly, they do not have any intention of defending national identities.

Sylvia, I dispute that there is a lack of political and cultural freedom within the EU. What there is, is sometimes pettifogging bureaucratic absurdities mandated by faceless agencies in Brussels. National governments in the real world have a hundred ways to by-pass the more ridiculous aspects of these. Because of the very diverse nature of the countries that comprise the EU, no central agency “rules” them, and none can. The centre merely administers provisions and norms that relate to EU membership. There neither can be nor should be some charismatic personality occupying the chair of President of the European Council. The office will probably always be held by some kind of bland compromise candidate that threatens the sovereign interests of members the least. In regard to your comments about the EU not defending the national identities of its members, I can point out to you that the smaller Eastern European EU members feel their national identity very much defended as a result of their membership, as now they are no longer at the mercy of Russia and its notions of the “fraternal brotherhood of nations”. Traditional national minorities within countries also have their identities defended by EU programs and initiatives. Meanwhile, larger nations cannot have it all their own way if they want to enjoy the benefits of membership. In fact, no single nation can have it all their own way. Smaller nations are used to such a regime, since having things their own way has seldom been their experience anywhere. But larger nations sometimes react when their naturally imperialist proclivities are to some degree dampened by EU requirements. And this would seem to be no bad thing.

It is easy. If the E.U. is successful, then it will expand, comprising an F.T.A. and Customes Union with Turkey, Russia,Ukraine, Morocco and Algeria. If the Eurasian Community is successful, then it will expand, comprising not just Slavic and Orthodox countries from Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Belarus, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro) but also former Russian Republics in Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Turkmenstan, Uzbekistan, Kirguiztan, Tadjikistan) and the Caucasus (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia) and new member states of the Eurasian Community which reach to the conclusion that successful Eurasian Community fits better to their interests (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq) The problem with the last two nations as well as with Georgia, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria comes from the fact their American rulers will not allow it..... So, if it is as successful as the E.U., the Eurasian Community will have a combined population of over 400 million people, and a combined economy at PPP of $5 Tr.

About all this possible Paneuropean-Eurasian mergers: First, I can understand the point jako777 has given. Slavic/Orthodox countries on one side around Russia, and Western/Catholic countries around France/Germany. Second, I think that Turkic factor has beign missed - there's vast and homogenous Turkic/Muslim territory, spreading from Turkey to Xinjiang (province in west of China with Uyghur majority), to which Mongols can be added (since they share common culture) - thus Russia,China,Iran etc would have significant territory losses... So, if history does repeat itself, we would again have Western and Eastern Roman Empires, as well as Turkish/Mongol Empire? And let us not forget the Arabs, and their Caliphate across southwest Asia and north Africa :D (I was sarcastic - if you people think that any of this is doable, then you're in wrong, at least when it comes to current geopolitical situation. Who knows, maybe it will happen in 100 years? For now, all these common blood/heritage groups have their Leagues - Pan-Slavic, Arab, Turkic etc, but they aren't to be transformed in EU-type of organization, because that's not the reason for their existence).

The main problem I have is the fact that in any fair trade agreements where there is a significant disparity in economic might between two countries, the small country gets dominated economically, and if you control the economy, you control the country. That's why it benefits the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy. The trillion dollar economies, whereas countries like Hungary have more and more industries ruined by price dumping and total control of all sugar companies in Hungary. The collapse of the Hungarian sugar industry is a great example due to French price dumping practices. Wine in the Czech republic is facing the same problem. Then there's the heavily polluting German industries being shifted into the Czech Republic just so Germany can continue to meet its ecological requirements. And the French wine industry continues to be subsidised at the EU's cost in order to keep them afloat, at the expense of the smaller economies. It is not unlike what NAFTA is doing to Canada, and to a lesser extent, Mexico, as Mexico managed to negotiate somewhat better control of its economy. Everything gets bought out, and profits go outside the country, leaving mostly low paying jobs as the sole economic benefit. The Croatian tourist industry is another fine example where just about everything is owned by international companies, and billions of euros a year earned does not stay within the Croatian economy. It just has low paying jobs and whatever is bought locally from these industries to benefit it.