Search

At a summit that was starting just as The Economist went to press in June 2004, heads of government of the 25 European Union (EU) countries were planning, after much haggling, to agree upon a new constitution for their Union. When EU leaders deadlocked in December 2003, Elmar Brok, a German who was a leading member of the convention, said that, if the constitution was not agreed on, Europe could slip back into the inter-state rivalries that led to the first world war. A failure to agree will not take Europe back to war, even if it could lead to a split within the EU. Nor would success necessarily mean the emergence of a new superpower called Europe. Point to any apparently significant aspect of the constitution--the Charter of Fundamental Rights or the creation of a European foreign minister--and somebody from Britain's Foreign Office will be at hand to explain that it is not as significant as it sounds. All the main achievements in European integration, from the single market to the abolition of frontier controls to the creation of a single currency, started life as words in a European treaty. Yet, for all that, there is considerable potential for the real world and the constitution to collide. Even if voters do not trash the putative constitution, European leaders might do it for them, by ignoring treaty commitments that prove too politically onerous.

The article discusses the bridge-construction industry in Europe and the role of the European Union. Europe has recently been building spectacular bridges as eagerly as America once did: Britain's second Severn bridge was completed in 1996; Portugal's second Tagus one in 1998; Denmark's island-hopping Storebaelt East bridge in 1998, with a 1.6km main span, at the time the longest ever; the Oresund bridge joining Denmark and Sweden in 2000. More are to come: recently aired, a new down-river Thames crossing; and, on paper since 2002, the mother of all bridges, a 3.3km suspension bridge which, from 2011--supposedly--will join Sicily to the Italian mainland. All this bridge-building is good news for the contractors. France has two of Europe's big four construction firms: Vinci, lead partner in the new Greek bridge (as earlier in the Tagus one), and Bouygues. With Skanska, leader of the Oresund consortium, and Germany's Hochtief, these are a formidable quartet. By turnover, reckons International Construction magazine, Vinci and Skanska lead the world, and all four are in the top eight, with three firms from Japan (ever addicted to costly public works) and, perhaps surprisingly, only Bechtel from America. European Union finance is one reason for this unlikely European leadership. EU funds go into many construction projects in poorer regions, even in rich countries. Under EU rules, all public-works contracts must be open to all EU firms equally. Yet visible prestige symbols such as giant bridges usually go to local firms or locally led consortia. That was true of the two French projects cited above. It will probably be true of the bridge to Sicily. Outside contractors can and do compete in EU countries. Bechtel is involved both in the Channel link and in London's Underground. Spending a fortune on such giant projects may be great for the construction industry. Whether it is a good use of taxpayers' money is less clear.