IN recent days, we have witnessed keynote speeches from the German Chancellor, the French Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission, setting out their vision for the future of Europe.

William Hague has been quick to seize on these blueprints, saying they demonstrate the desire to create a European super state.

While stoking up Euro-sceptic sentiments fits in with Mr Hague's election agenda, it does not reflect what was actually set out by the three most senior political figures in mainland Europe.

The federal structure for Europe outlined by Chancellor Schroeder, mirrors the federal framework in his own country and with which his people are comfortable. It also has the added advantage of guaranteeing hegemony to the biggest country and strongest economy. Such a system would be in Germany's national interest.

In response, Prime Minister Jospin's rejects the German notion of federalism, instead talking of more powers for the Council of Ministers "to make Europe without undoing France". Such a system would be in France's national interests.

In his response, EC President Prodi talks about a wider and stronger role for the EC itself. Such a system would be in his own and the EC's interests.

Far from supporting the notion of Europe turning into a political and economic monolith, taken together, the three speeches expose that notion as a myth.

No matter how much Mr Hague and the Conservative leadership may wish to play on the fears that a "United States of Europe" is under construction, it is apparent that national interests in Europe still outweigh the desire for union.

For all their differences of opinion, however, we applaud the political leaders in Europe for having a reasoned and real debate about the future.

In our election campaign, there is little sign of genuine debate.

The Conservatives are sticking to their simplistic 'Keep the Pound' slogan, even though their actual policy says nothing of the sort, promising, as it does, to save the pound for at least the lifetime of the next Parliament. Five years is not forever.

Senior Labour figures, too, appear unwilling to enter into a serious debate. They are ridiculously defensive on the issue, perhaps unwilling to risk stirring up the majority of the public's suspicion of the single currency and lukewarm attachment to Europe.

The longer Britain delays determining where its future lies within Europe and joining in the debate with other European states, the less chance we are going to have of creating the Europe we want to see.