如在每日邮报的案例显示，“安全理论”为例，先涛公司的案例和uberseering案例，表明目前对欧盟至关重要问题的不和谐。混乱和出尔反尔，在案件的各种决定都太明显，随之而来的问题国家实践的后续决策，强调完全的立场，欧盟成员国发现自己在开车过程中前进。有些人认为这并不是一件坏事，而不是最后协调全国企业法律的立法竞争可能有一个反应，声称“欧洲立法者应该考虑它的好处和影响可能对欧洲公司法的进一步发展。在立法过程中的下一个步骤将确定在何种程度上的立法竞争应该可以发生。”[ 16 ]现在的僵局，目前正在使用中的欧盟法律框架的多层次系统，依赖于法律，允许它的功能和生存而试图满足其的目标，然而，一个主要的目标将是欧洲范围内和谐的法律制度。然而这似乎是遥远的，该系统目前赖以生存的规律，是在与协调过程的直接冲突。joerges表明“这不是多样性的去除而尊重它，应该是欧洲。就其法律传统的多样性而言，它应该是民族精神的“多样性的统一，构成了后国家欧盟法的固有。欧盟法的法律冲突理解是一个解释性的意图，目的仅仅是考虑这些特定的特征。这项新法律冲突的目的是“通过proceduralisation '，但超硬法。它的目的是真正构成欧洲，从而站在传统的“通过法律的整合”[ 17 ]。这是一个奇怪的现象是，这将是留给成员国推进协调过程的速度，他们感到舒适，所以这将是留给成员国如德国和英国继续他们的任务协调公司法在整个欧洲，通过解决许多问题，欧盟还没有实现的指令或规定。成员国如这将删除的艰苦和繁琐的官僚机构，迄今这个适应过程，取而代之的是充满活力和前瞻性思维的法理学将推动欧盟法律协调的主要目标，当然新的高度，欧洲各国公司法司法之间的关系是不容易的。问题的部分原因在于各国公司法是高度专业化的，通常在专门的商业或公司法法院或议会的审查，而欧洲法院是没有这样的专业化。不久这个缺口后必须桥接。[ 18 ]，这样可以弥补差距的唯一方法就是如果委员会或法院的决定与成员国和他们的司法参与更加活跃，这将推动协调仍与成员国在其前沿，但也将确保在某次机关欧盟将不得不把自己的洞察力，可能对欧洲统一的立法体制的未来冲击的能力，这意味着他们可以采取主动背着和谐。
The example of the ‘seat theory’ as highlighted in the Daily Mail case, Centros Case and Uberseering case, shows the disharmony that exists currently on issues of vital importance to the EU. The confusion and back pedalling that was all too apparent in the various decisions of the cases and the subsequent decision to follow state practice on the issue, highlights perfectly the position that the EU finds itself in, the member states drive the process forward. Some suggest that this is not such a bad thing claiming “Instead of finally harmonizing the national corporate laws as a response to the effect a legislative competition might have, the European legislator should consider the benefits of it and the influence it could have on the further development of the European corporate law. The next steps in the legislation process will define the extent to which a legislative competition should and can occur.” At the moment there is an impasse in the sense that the multi-level system currently being used in the EU legal framework, is dependent upon law that allows it to function and survive while trying to meet its goals, however, one of the main goals would be a harmonious legal system within Europe. This however, would seem to be far away as the law that the system currently depends on to survive, is in direct conflict with the harmonisation process. Joerges suggests “it is not the removal of diversity but instead respect for it that should characterise Europe. As far as the multiplicity of its legal traditions is concerned, it should be the ethos of ‘unity in diversity’ that constitutes the proprium of post-national EU law. The conflict of laws understanding of EU law is an interpretive precept intended to take into account solely these specific features. This new conflict of laws aims to ‘proceed through proceduralisation’ , but is supranational hard law. It is intended truly to constitute Europe and thus stands in the tradition of ‘integration through law’”. This is a strange situation to be in, as it will be left up to the member states to push forward the harmonisation process at a rate at which they feel comfortable with, so it will be left to member states such as Germany and the UK to continue their quest in harmonising corporate law throughout Europe, by addressing the many issues of which the EU have still not implemented directives or regulations. Member states such as these will remove the laborious and cumbersome bureaucracy that has so far held back the harmonisation process and replace it with vibrant and forward thinking jurisprudence that will push the EU’s main goal of legal harmonisation to new heights Of course, the relationship between the European and the national company law judiciary is not an easy one. Part of the problem stems from the fact that national company law is highly professionalized, usually under the scrutiny of specialized commercial or company law courts or senates, while the European Court of Justice is without such specialization. Sooner or later this gap must be bridged. The only way that such a gap can be bridged is if the Commission or the Court decide to be more active in their involvement with the member states and their judiciary, this will push forward harmonisation still with member states at its forefront, but will also ensure that at certain times the organs of the EU will have the ability to put in their own insight which may impact on the future shape of the harmonised European legislative system, meaning they can then take back the initiative and watch over the harmony.