In June 2005, referenda in France and the Netherlands brought the European Union into a crisis, a severe crisis. The subsequent quarrel over the European budget poured additional oil on the fire. The ambitious project of a strong Europe, successfully challenging the United States of America and Asia, particularly China, has to be overhauled. On the surface, the conflict is simply between two extremes: a Europe of nations in a free market economy, and a Europe which is governed by a huge bureaucracy in Brussels determined to control almost everything, from the size of cucumbers to European competition laws. In reality, the conflict encourages everybody to articulate vested concerns, justifying the critics with selective information about wrong-doings and mismanaged funds. There are those who criticise the European Agricultural Policy as an outdated model and urge the European leaders to dedicate more funds to research and development. Others defend the preservation of the European landscape and identity through agriculture, in order to maintain a longer term global competitiveness. They argue that by maintaining the various European regional identities and cultures, regional liveability and embeddedness, preconditions for attracting qualified labour, are guaranteed. In reality, the conflict is simply between those who trust the market more than state intervention and those who have confidence in an enlightened state when it comes to guide longer term spatial development.