EU Treaty Signed

[Patroclus]

You can find a draft here.

One of the interesting things about being in the UK this past month has been watching the development of what looks to me like a European Confederacy. This is a drafy composed last year. There have been many changes since then, which I am sure will become available soon enough.

I think it Behooves Americans to pay attention to this, especially if anybody out there is a little (or a lot) wary of the UN.

Britain has been a big holdout agains the EU for a long time, but there is a strong movement behind it, and even Tony Blair is backing Brittish Ratification of the Recently signed treaty.

[Gideon Brown]

Ok Pat, I'll show some interest in your thread.

-Does this mean the end of the US as the dominant world superpower, economically, militarily, etc.?
-Do you suppose that this will cause other 'groups' of nations to look at doing something similar (e.g. North America)?

[Ryokan]

My humble opinion:
1. Britain will go with the EU. Britain has to choose between EU membership or US vassalship, and they stand to gain more from the EU.
2. The US is not going to be the sole superpower forever. China, India, and Europe are going to become great powers in twenty years or so, probably with the US at the head and Europe as the weakest.
3. I doubt North America or the UN will go this way. Unification has been 500 years in the making, and is no sure bet even now.

[Patroclus]

My humble opinion:
1. Britain will go with the EU. Britain has to choose between EU membership or US vassalship, and they stand to gain more from the EU.

Well, I am not sure that they suffer from any danger of vassalship, but from what I understand, there is a lot to gain by joining the EU.

2. The US is not going to be the sole superpower forever. China, India, and Europe are going to become great powers in twenty years or so, probably with the US at the head and Europe as the weakest.

And this is the point. It is good economic strategy to consolidate. It expands the natural resources while restricting the hands upon them. It sets the EU up as a viable competitor with nations like the US, China, and India. However, we are looking more at a Confederation, so the kind of cohesion amond states in the US should not be expected in the EU. Militarily, an EU force would probably be temporary coalitions rather than an independently maintained army.

3. I doubt North America or the UN will go this way. Unification has been 500 years in the making, and is no sure bet even now.

I tend to doubt that we have to worry about this with the UN, but I think it some sort of consolidation is inevitable in the next 200 years or so.

[Busheses]

A couple of things to consider IMHO

I believe the EU is growing faster than it should if you consider that its members are not at the same economic level. You have countries like Germany (rich, economically and relatively socially stable) but some other countries that are still trying to come to terms with recent ethnic wars and/or with their ties with the former Soviet Union.

In addition to this, the education levels of the citizens of these countries could not be any more uneven.

Could it be that the union is trying to present itself as a world power without regard for its stability or the stability of its members?

I believe that if England decided to embrace the Euro as currency it would help the EU to be a bit stronger but I doubt the English would go for it based on the economic development (or lack thereof) of some of its members.

One more thing before I go, in recent years, the rise of ethnic hatred (France comes to mind), could in the future threaten the stability of the Union if something is not done ASAP.

Just my .02

[Rahab]

Bonjour Pat....sorry for a blank appearing in my previous reply as we lost power right as I was sending in my reply. Let me try to recompose the whole thing.

I was just reading yesterday a thorough analysis of the most recent elections of the 732 deputees at the European Parliament. The abstention rate from a total of 350 millions of European voters was estimated to 57%. I can give you the web site of France Amerique (The International Edition of the Figaro) which has dedicated 3 pages to that analysis. Summarizing it for you here is way too complexe as it explores all the different political factions representing the current 25 members.
www.france-amerique.com. The edition is dated June 19th. You will need to rely on a translator. I can access those articles as I have a weekly suscribtion to the paper coming in my mail.

However from what I gathered, it appears that a battle of wills prevails between the rising socialist representation (mostly from Eastern European members) and the national interest focused groups illustrated by extreme right representatives. Which IMO will make a common agreement on the terms of the projected Constitution difficult to attain. The abstention rate IMO reflects the degree of skepticism among some Europeans.

[Patroclus]

But, according to the BBC last week as the treaty was being approved by the EU Parlaiment, and the week before, as the elections were taking place, the abstention rates reflected national trends for almost any election. At any rate, it seems that a 43% turnout was good considerring that some countries showed as much as an 80%, or higher, voter turnout.