It is time, we are told, for the Republic, to put away the begging bowl when going to Brussels. This brilliant analysis does no justice to the issues at stake in relation to the EU. But it is understandable in the context of CAP reform, budget reform, structural funds changes, tax harmonisation, the euro and so on. The EU never seemed more about money than now.

It is useful in this context to dip into some of the bigger-picture analysis of European issues as found in the book, Core Issues in European Economic Integration edited by UCG economists Eamon O'Shea and Michael Keane (Oak Tree Press, 1999, £19.95).

Here, a selection of economists write for "the general reader who is . . . willing to accept the challenge posed by the more technical parts of the material". As an economics professor in a business school once said: "Our job is to make business students intelligent consumers of what we write - that is the best we can hope for!"

The intelligent consumer of this collection of essays is launched into a discussion of social philosophy by Eithne Murphy, a discussion which hangs in the background of the other essays. She surveys theories of social organisation from Locke to present thinkers like Rawls and Nobel prize-winner Amartya Sen.

The point she makes is that the EU has been based largely on economic union, favouring corporations, whereas it ought to be viewed as the construction of a particular social model. The free market is not just a means of engaging in commerce. It is a social model and so must be the EU, as it is based broadly on liberal, free market principles. Ms Murphy is keen to point out the failures of the free market, indeed with a greater alacrity than government failures or the deficiencies of heavy-handed state intervention.

The conclusion is pessimistic. The EU will falter as a social organisation, producing unintended social ills, if it continues to concentrate on economic efficiency. This fairly represents a left-wing analysis of the EU. In common with other contributors, she is driven towards a federalist result, "unless federally based automatic structures are created to promote solidarity among citizens, the political will to address and redress problems that might arise as a consequence of competitive market activity, will not exist". Economic union drives the necessity for political integration to correct the problems arising from free markets.

If this is true, then we had better take note of how much integration we have already committed to. It would also mean that government policy of opposition to tax harmonisation is dangerously deluded.

The essay on international trade concludes that "public intervention designed to spread the benefits of growth will be necessary". In a non sequitur from the rest of the chapter, it says "local development policies, increased public employment and more generous social welfare provision must play a part in this effort". We wonder why.

Eamon O'Shea is also pessimistic about social policy becoming as important in the EU integration process as economic policy, as he says it should. He recommends that an EU social policy should include an EU-wide basic income scheme, ideally. This would be a fully-blown federal social policy.

Prof Michael Keane writes that, in relation to regional policy, the core principles of fiscal federalism will need to be adopted if the EU is the achieve balanced development across its regions. But he recognises that there is political resistance to fiscal federalism.

In relation to enlargement, Michael Cuddy says that aspirant EU members will have to harmonise fiscal and monetary policies in order to integrate. They will face a difficult adjustment politically and socially.

Many of the conclusions of these essays are not helpful to those who shape current government policy. The loss of local control implied by automatic federal systems is not palatable.

There is little discussion in the book of why there is political resistance by EU member-states to the achievement of the desired, integrated, socially optimal EU. Could it not be that this political resistance is actually governments responding to their electorates? That would surely be a good thing, not to be dismissed as narrow protection of self-interest by selfish populations, blind to the win-win scenario of closer integration.

If the populations of the EU choose not to integrate quickly, or beyond a certain level, it is surely their prerogative not to do so. It is stretching a point, even misleading the electorate, to insinuate that full EU integration is the only route to a new and better society.

Still, it is always good to read intelligent discussions of these issues, even if only as an antidote to the begging bowl cliche.

Oliver O'Connor is an investment funds specialist.