Actually, I think McCain's suggestion is more of a tactical domestic nature (i.e., making a timely and pertinently pitched proposition in an election campaign where he already admitted little affinity with pesky macroeconomics) than a truly thought-out and viable strategic proposal.

A hypothetical trans-Atlantic free trade zone is not necessarily a bad idea; in fact, I see it coming somewhere down the pike myself as well, but we're still at least a few generations away from such a luxurious position, which presupposes a bit more equally balanced set of [i]shared[/i] interests in play, than brawny big US corporate interests clearing a path through Brussels' regulations that they fear, loath or both.

Cute idea, ain't gonna happen.

To wit: the case of the Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45 fallout, and the tell-tale response; there's more than an ocean of difference in the interpretation of the role of international law in play here.

McCain's idea is an instance where caution is warranted about the consequences of actually getting what you're asking for; it's a blimp like the Goodyear one, more useful for its appearance than its artificially added purpose of schlepping cameras around suggests.

Actually, Brussels likes Bill Gates a whole lot better (mainly on account of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their governing principles) than that they like Paul Allen.

I'm not sure what the suggested idea is based on that the EU's market consolidation took a generation. In fact, it only took a mere few years, after WWII and subsequent trans-Atlantic meetings suggested a far more profitable marriage of economics and security as an alternative to nation-state centric transnational policy coordination.

The Benelux was an embryonic example, but a very real case of three very real and very sovereign nations sharing borders on [i]tax revenue[/i] basis. Small wonder that the so-called founding fathers of the EU saw fit to roll out an initially bilateral deal to encompass a much larger scope, precisely as the long-term success of that marriage I referred to depends on economy of scale.

So, as the borders of (what now is) the EU grew, it rolled open markets out. And over time, the classic second development (the "deepening" of the EU) took care of more (further) far-reaching agreements. It's a process where markets were added over time to an increasing group of nations, rather than a gradual collective convergence of a collective market.

It's diagonal deregulation, in it's barest essence.

That's a correct summary: I predict that it will take a long time to create a trans-Atlantic free trade zone, not because it necessarily takes that long (in a material sense, it could be done much, much faster - in a decade even) but because there's much, much more to making such an agreement politically viable than arguments tied to trade alone.

For better or worse (and I am of the opinion that it's the latter: both regrettable and factually unnecessary) there's a tremendous difference in political perception, and that's a first roadblock to eliminate. Which certainly won't happen within a generation. The rest, well, add up to the remainder of years until the climate is ripe.

I won't live in that world.

Sadly, as I'd dearly love to see "my" two halves converge.