from the drum .....

So the G20 economic summit in Mexico did not actually set forth a dynamic action plan. Well, surprise, surprise.

But one moment of furious agreement between the bickering nations did emerge. The final communiqué assured us that all members of the G20 supported "the intention to consider concrete steps towards a more integrated financial system..." or at the very least to prepare to begin thinking about supporting the intention to consider something or other.

Not only that, but the eurozone members would "take all necessary steps to safeguard the stability and integrity of the area". Like what, for instance? Well, they would go home and pack their bags for the European Council meeting next week.

This was hardly the "bold and decisive" action for which Julia Gillard had called, although she was willing to make excuses; delegates were, she noted, under stress and pressure. An impartial observer might have added that it was about bloody time.

The eurozone has been sliding down the slippery slope towards chaos and disintegration for at least the last two years and the collective leadership has relied on chewing gum and sticky tape to hold it together while dithering aimlessly over the real problem: how to weld this amorphous collection of nation states into a coherent entity while simultaneously respecting their ancient culture and hostilities and their fierce nationalism.

The visitor to Europe is struck immediately by the anomalies, petty though most of them may be. There is no uniform postage; each country jealously retains the right to issue its own stamps at its own rates, although the border crossings are supposed to be absolutely free. Traffic laws vary from place to place, to the alarm and confusion of the motorist who breezes unchecked across the frontiers. And even the currency, the core of the union, is not the same: while the euro notes are uniform, the coins are manufactured in different countries with different markings.

In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that more basic underlying divisions persist. But what is harder to comprehend, or to forgive, is that the powers that be within the union have glossed over them for so long, leading to the current wave of crises. And of course in the face of criticism from outsiders, the eurozone closes ranks, displaying a unity that could well be devoted to a better cause.

The two big guns, France and Germany, did just that in Mexico when a number of participants including - but not limited to - Australia politely suggested that, in the face of repeated failure to achieve lasting solutions, the eurozone might try something different.

The new French president snapped back that he and the German chancellor Angela Merkel were both well aware that Europe needed to fix the problem on its own. "We can have different points of view but Mrs Merkel and I know that Europe must have its own response," he elaborated somewhat meaninglessly. "It must not be given to us from outside." Merkel's own reaction to the advice was described as "frosty".

But the most decisive rejection came from the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, who apparently felt the need to justify his lofty but largely symbolic position by taking the high ground: "Frankly, we are not coming here to receive lessons in terms of democracy or in terms of how to handle the economy." And he added for good measure that Europe would not be lectured and that the EU was not the cause of the crisis anyway.

Assuming that by the crisis he was referring to entire GFC, he had a point: the rot actually started in the United States. But the fact remains that the EU was manifestly ill-prepared to deal with it and that when it did take action, it was on the basis of individual countries rather than the union as a whole, which was the great initial blunder.

If the EU has a purpose, let alone a future, it must speak with a single voice when this kind of crisis strikes. By adopting an "every man for himself" strategy until it was time to start mopping up the mess, it showed that however sincere its commitment to economic unity, any genuine political unity is probably unachievable.

And this was the basis of the outsider criticism in Mexico, which came not only from Australia but from China, Indonesia, and the United States, all of whom urged a broader and more integrated approach whose principle aim must be to prevent local recessions developing into a regional, or even global, malaise.

This certainly was the tenor of the letter written by Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan, which (although you would never have guessed it from reading the Australian press) was actually a considered and constructive document: it acknowledged Australia's special circumstances, including its fortunate trading position and bipartisan commitment to economic reform and stable institutions, and suggested that some of the measures Australia had taken to avoid the GFC might be worth a look. And in particular it urged the European trading nations not to turn back to protectionism in response to the current crisis.

Sensible and unexceptionable advice, one might have thought; but virtually all the local commentary picked up Barroso's complaints about unwanted lecturing and concluded that Gillard had stuffed up again. They continued to lecture her to that effect for days. The honourable stand-out was The Australian's Greg Sheridan, whose long vendetta against Europe transcended his anti-Gillard antipathy. But the overall local reaction was to add the G20 to the long list of Gillard blunders.

For my money, this was grossly unfair: in fact, she flew the Australian flag with both aplomb and tact and deserves at least a couple of cheers. But in the present toxic atmosphere Gillard could be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and still be marked down in the polls for it. When you're hot, you're hot, and when you're not, the Australian way is to kick you to death.

Mungo MacCallum