[Rictor]

I wouldn't be so sure about the USE. Okay, in name maybe, but the new Constitution would already give EU courts the ability to over-ride the rulings of national courts. Add to that a common currency, a common EU "rapid deployment force", which by its very existance will de-emphasize the importance of national militaries, the ability to cross borderers with extreme ease, and an ever more unified foreign and economic policy, and you see how the EU will in short order become very much like a United States of Europe, with nothing left but ever-diminishing cultural differences.

You have to look 20 or 30 years into the future, assume that the trends towards centralizatralization will continue in earnest, and then judge.

[Swamp_Thing]

Europe won´t become a USE per se, but it will become a semi federation eventually. Each nation will maintain its local government just as any american state does, with the exception that changes to the legislation, like changes to the constitution and penal code, will be done in Brussels.
While the US has all the power focused in one man, the european federation will be more like a corporate counsil type of thing, with a chairman and a counselor from each member state.
Each nation would still conduct elections, with the exception that the presidents and prime ministers we elect would become part of that counsil. Like the russian federation. Well, kinda...

[Mefustae]

Well, for one, Europe finally uniting under one banner is probably the best thing that could happen on this miserable rock, i mean, how can you stand against something that will see the worst disasters of Humankind to date, the First and Seconds World Wars, a thing of the past never to be repeated...

...Surely, there will be no 'United States of Europe', for, as has already been said, many countries won't stand for it (namely Britain & France), for should Europe unite ala the US, each country will be giving up the independence and national identity they have fought so hard to preserve over the past several Thousand years or so....

...Best case scenario; in another attempt or so, a Constitution will be created and the EU will unite a damn good portion of Humanity in peace, and will be a new step towards a Global Identity for Humanty. Also, if this happens, the EU will likely become a Global Superpower overnight, creating a perfect balance of SuperPowers that is need on this planet; the current SP - the USA, the soon to be a SP - China, and the EU. Reviewing history, one can plainly see that one must have three superpowers to be balanced. One superpower leads to that power becoming very much like the US is now and has been since the collapse of the Soviet Union, which has really been discussed to death so i don't need to go into why it's a problem. Two Superpowers will lead to a rivalry situation, namely that of a Cold War, which is a bad, bad thing. Three SuperPowers will create a Balance, like the old Shakespearian story of King Lear, a kingdom divided in three will have balance, in two, it will have chaos...

...So, really, the EU is all but inevitable, which is definitely a good thing Globally Speaking...

[aldo_14]

I was under the impression the Constitution was more about economic free-market liberalisation than actually any form of 'unionisation' (in the sense of an USE).

Here's a set of things on the bbc giving an overview, anyways;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3825521.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3954327.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2950276.stm

[General Freak]

'What the constitution says:

The Union is said to be subsidiary to member states and can act only in those areas where "the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states but can rather... be better achieved at Union level." The principle is established that the Union derives its powers from the member states.

What it means:

The idea is to stop the Union from encroaching on the rights of member states other than in areas where the members have given them away. Critics say that the EU can act in so many areas that this clause does not mean much but supporters say it will act as a brake and is an important constitutional principle. '

Doesn't sound to bad for me. I'm for the EU constitution and I don't think that any EU countries will lose much more of their sovereignity than they are doing right now. To want to protect one's own interests, cultures, and things like that would be fine, but getting in the way of everyone else because of your own 'patriotism' is something else.

[Clave]

Agreed, and 'Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel' is always apposite...

[vyper]

[q]To want to protect one's own interests, cultures, and things like that would be fine, but getting in the way of everyone else because of your own 'patriotism' is something else.[/q]

[sarchasm] Yes because it's failed us in the past hasn't it?  [/sarchasm]

[aldo_14]

I always find it interesting to contrast the nature of the UK - a union of independent countries (and part of one conquered) - with that towardsthe EU.  Particularly with regards to national identity.

[karajorma]

In that Scots, the Welsh and the catholic Northern Irelanders spend half their time moaning about independance?

[aldo_14]

Moaning about being ignored, usually.  Just watch the BBc report in the news on the EU rebate, and listen to the quote from Chirac.

[Setekh]

I don't see how any reasonable parallels can be drawn between the states of America before they were unified, and Europe. These are entirely different peoples we're talking about now: language, culture, it's all very diverse. A union coming out of that - the way the US is at the moment - seems impossible.

[Rictor]

Impossible today, yes. But in thirty years time, maybe not so much. I think that, especially with the youth, English is quickly becoming sort of like a natural second language, which almost everyone can speak with some degree of fluency. Look at the various Europeans (excluding Brits) on HLP, just as a small example. And everything I have seen indicates that a large portion of the population of most West Europeans countries, and increasingly so in the East, are proficient in English.

As for culture, well I think that cultures literally worldwide are quickly becoming homogenous, more so with each passing year. Now when I say quickly, I don't mean over a period of a few years, but rather decades. Still, quicker than at any time in history that I am aware of. The global village and all that. Given that European countries have pretty similar societies, nothing radically different, this unification of culture isn't going to come up against any major obstacles that I can see. Also, factor in that travel between EU member countries is really easy, and that as the already high living standards are raised, more people can and do travel or even live abroad, and you see that I'm not so far off the mark.

edit:

or to put it another way: the whole world is becoming a United States of Earth, Europe is just doing it quicker.

[Clave]

Every town in the world will have a McDonalds, and everyone will be fat

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
or to put it another way: the whole world is becoming a United States of Earth, Europe is just doing it quicker.

As long as it doesn't mean US hegomony over the Earth is that necessarily a bad thing?

[NGTM-1R]

Even if it does mean US hegemony over the Earth, is it a bad thing even then?

Bush is out in a few years, and it doesn't seem too likely the next President will be Republican, after all.

[Skippy]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
Bush is out in a few years.

Hopefully

[karajorma]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
Even if it does mean US hegemony over the Earth, is it a bad thing even then?

That much is. 350m people controlling a world full of 6 billion is a recipe for trouble.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by karajorma


As long as it doesn't mean US hegomony over the Earth is that necessarily a bad thing?

That all depends on your socio-political views. Personally, I would rather it not happen, but I recognize that it's beyond anyone's power to stop it. So I accept it and move on, but also realize that the how and when are not set in stone, so there is wiggle room.

As for the US, I think the age of US hegemony is more or less over. Their influence is quickly dwindling, and militarily they're just not all that ferocious anymore. Try as they might, they can't hold on to their former power any longer. Now that doesn't mean that they will just disappear, far from it, but they will be increasingly more bark and less bite. A single occupation stops them dead in their tracks, so obviously they're not as big a power as people imagines. A bully doesn't usually rely on strength, he relies on the appearance of strenght. Iraq was supposed to be an example to world, and so it has become, but not in the way Bush wanted. I wouldn't worry to much about the US, Bush is the product of a nation who sees itself in decline and tries to fight the invitable.

edit: I realize this must seem to be contradicting everything I have ever said, but I don't mean it to. I'm not saying the US is powerless, or ever will be, and that their actions should not be strutinized and condemned when necessary, they should, but in my opinion they can't sustain their hegemony very far into the future.

[karajorma]

Actually that's pretty much how I see it except that I lean in favour of a world government system (As long as it's the right one. There are far too many ways for it to go horribly wrong).

[aldo_14]

I think the US only had a sense of prospective hegemony when there was an equivalent 'threat' to it; peope would work with the US during the Cold War because it looked like it would come down to between them and the USSR.