Another leader article that has an obvious subject.

	Nafta membership would be a natural consequence of Britain's links with the United States.	ON JULY 9, Conrad Black, Chairman of the Telegraph Group, delivered a lecture to the Centre for Policy Studies. In it, he elaborated on some of the alternatives open to a Britain that chose to stand aside from political union in Europe. The most attractive option, he argued, was membership of Nafta, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is discussing enlargement with several South American and Scandinavian states. The reaction to his speech has been intriguing. Margaret Thatcher has let it be known that she agrees with every word. Several Conservative frontbenchers, from all wings of the party, have signalled their support. The Sun, too, has waded in, urging Tony Blair to "look West young man", and pointing out that Nafta membership would be a natural consequence of Britain's links with the United States. Most interesting, however, has been the response of the critics. Almost no one has argued that Mr Black's dispensation would be undesirable. Instead, their complaint is that it is "impractical". This, of course, is a rather clever way of closing down the debate before it starts. But it is far from clear why the scheme should be impractical. Europhiles offer two reasons: first, that the Americans would not want it; second, that the Europeans would not allow it. These are important objections, and worth considering separately. The notion that the Americans want Britain to be part of a European bloc is not wholly groundless, but it is becoming out of date. US commentators are waking up to the fact that the EU contains an important anti-American component. Henry Kissinger, perhaps the most influential of post-war foreign policy thinkers, recently warned against further European integration. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives, has promised in these pages to support any move by Congress to offer Britain associate membership of Nafta. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas has since introduced precisely such a Bill. And in Canada, the leader of the opposition, Preston Manning, has written to The Daily Telegraph to support Mr Black's proposal. The only way to test how the North Americans would respond to a British application is, of course, to submit such an application. All the signs are that it would be favourably received.
	the EU contains an important anti-American component. Henry Kissinger recently warned against further European integration.	The second objection - that the Europeans would resent Britain enjoying the benefits of Atlantic free trade, and would impose punitive sanctions - is oddly revealing. By making such a case, the Europhiles are implicitly conceding that Britain would be more prosperous as part of an expanded Nafta. More than that, they are conceding that Britain's affluence would offend many Continental states. We do not believe that our allies in the EU would be so vindictive. But if the Europhiles know better, why do they want us to be in Europe at all? By their own logic, the politicians with whom they want us to share sovereignty are inherently spiteful and anti-British. In any case, tariff barriers between Britain and the rest of the EU would damage the Continent far more than these islands. Since joining in 1972, Britain has had a negative trade balance with the other members in 21 out of 25 years, accumulating a total deficit of £155 billion. Over the same period, it has run a surplus with the rest of the world of £75 billion. It is not normal, in any negotiation, for salesmen to bully their clients. A third objection is that, by joining Nafta, Britain would become (in the hoary phrase) the 51st state of the US. But this is not how Nafta works. Canada has lost none of its independence under the agreement, despite deriving more than 40 per cent of its GNP from trade with the US. As Nafta expands into South America - and possibly into the peripheral areas of Europe - fears about US dominance will recede further. The notion that Nafta could pose more of a threat to its members' sovereignty than the EU is preposterous.
	the Europeans with whom they want us to share sovereignty are inherently spiteful and anti-British.	The case for Nafta membership is primarily a positive one. Britain conducts twice as much trade with North America as does the rest of the EU. We are the largest foreign investor in the US and, earlier this year, became the main holders of US Treasury bonds. Little wonder that, in its formal assessment of whether Britain should join EMU, the Treasury had to concede that our economy was marching in step with North America, not Europe. And the trend is accelerating: British exports to the US are rising, while exports to Europe are falling. Modern technology is making our geographical proximity to Europe irrelevant. The case for associating with the New World does not rest simply on affinity of language, culture or political values. It is based on hard economic calculation. It is an idea whose time is coming.