Trond Andresen writes that California's pioneering work on clean air standards is an example of the benefits of national sovereignty. Am I mistaken then in believing that the technical emissions standards adopted by California for automobiles and other air pollution sources, are in response to Federal air quality standards? (Different technical standards are necessary to meet the same air quality standards due to California's climate & topography). If my memory is not failing me here, then, we don't have such a clear-cut case of local virtue vs. federal bungling, and it's not at all clear that California would have been so resolute about technical standards if not for the federal air quality standards. (In fact, California's technical standards *are* federal standards: federal law allows states to choose between two sets of auto emissions standards, one designated by California and on by the Federal government.) If the same sort of solution can't happen in the E.U., it seems to me that the problem is the particular set of rules adopted by the E.U., not the concept of European union. For instance, Trond notes that Britain vetoed tougher clean air standards for Europe (thus maintaining its sovereign right to send acid rain to Norway). He should at least acknowledge that such a veto would be impossible if those supporting a federal Europe had their way. The fact that local technical standards are illegal trade barriers while regional (i.e., European) air quality standards can be vetoed by one country simply shows that the E.U. has not progressed beyond the Thatcherite vision of a free trade area. Fred Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
