Burke had it wrong. The age of ''sophisters, economists, and calculators,'' far from extinguishing the glory of Europe, has seen its universal apotheosis. No less a calculator than Robert Bourassa hails the European Community with something close to real emotion as one of the supreme achievements of humanity. The more dispersed federation he sees ahead for Canada is modeled on the EC of 1992: a league of sovereign states under a supranational authority, with a common currency and a common market.

New Brunswick's Frank McKenna also cites Europe as his ideal in advancing his proposal for an economic union of the Maritime provinces. It would not be political union, but ''a Maritime common market, similar to the European Community, where each country preserves its cultural and political sovereignty.'' It cannot have been far from his mind, moreover, that the Maritime provinces would carry more weight relative to Ontario and Quebec if they acted as a region. For Bourassa, then, Europe is a symbol of the diffusion of sovereignty; for McKenna, of its fusion; though for each only in part. Canada is too integrated for Bourassa, too fractured for McKenna: Europe must be somewhere in between. In truth, they are both wide of the mark. The European Community of its architects' intent would be far more centralized than Bourassa imagines, indeed more so than Canada today. But the Europe of reality is unlikely to prove capable of acting as a proper federation, if it holds together at all.

The federalists' ideal can certainly be seen in the staged implementation of hundreds of measures to align each country's laws as they relate to trade and investment, with the aim of creating a single European market by the end of 1992.

Already the EC's competition commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, is moving impressively against trade-distorting practices, ordering France's Renault and Britain's Rover Group to give back the subsidies they received, and instructing Britain, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands to wind down industrial aid altogether. Is this what Bourassa wants? Can you imagine Ottawa preventing Quebec or any province from offering handouts to business?

The community's authority, however, depends on the willingness of member states to implement its decisions: The community proposes, but the nation-state disposes. The weakness of this structure is revealed when strength is needed most: in times of crisis and dissent.

The EC has dithered throughout the Gulf standoff, its member states acting instead with consummate self-interest. The drive for a single currency has likewise stalled: Any government can block it, not by active interference, but by simple inaction. The hope for political union, so evident early this year, has faded. And without political union, economic union will be difficult to enforce, especially in a recession. That is the lesson Europe offers for McKenna's proposal - and for sovereignty association.

Rather than merging the Maritimes or the West, as long as we're rearranging Confederation, it would be more in keeping with the European model to break both Ontario and Quebec into four. Kenora has little in common with Toronto; the Cree of James Bay are a world away from the mandarins of Quebec City.

For as much as the Europeans are attempting to pass power up to the supranational level, there is an acclerating movement to devolve power down to the subnational: to ethnically or culturally specific regions like Scotland or Lombardy. It is curious that a province whose leading citizens proclaim its status as an emerging nation-state should embrace a model which implies the slow destruction of the nation-state.

The EC directorate has encouraged this trend, viewing the nation-state as its rival. But the paradox is that the more governments the EC must deal with, the more difficult it will be to impose its will.

It was all very well with 12 national governments, most of whom have a strong moral commitment to European unity. But what will they do with 50? With any luck, the European superstate, if it comes, will be a happily anarchic place, rather like Italy. But it will be unable to mobilize its collective resources where necessary in the same way as a truly federal state. Worse, without a strong central government, it cannot prevent or settle disputes.

The European model - a government of governments - is fatally flawed. The only sound and lasting basis for a federation lies in a direct emotional, legal and fiscal relationship between the federal government and the individual citizen. If we seek a working model of federalism, we would do better to look to the U.S. example than the European.