I'm right here, polemikos if you want to do a profile on me. I was honest in my vote. This country is in trouble on many levels.
You get a point for Honesty!
But seriously, you're comment appears to be mixing apples and oranges. What happens within the US is a separate question.
One major problem with Euroland is the ongoing creation of the bureaucratic superstructure. A federalized layer of bureaucrats is being put in place in Euroland. Here the problems will be legion. Checks and balances are limited, so expect the size of this layer to grow inexorably.
It has been suggested that this new political entity will be equivalent to the US federal government's role, but this mischaracterizes the nature of the beast. The countries involved all have sovereign government bureaucracies in place already; think ministries of defense, judiciary, security, welfare, etc. None of the exisiting layers are to be eliminated (that would be "unfair"). So new layers are to be added to coordinate and implemement new Euroland laws, edicts, and policies among the various countries.
While it could be argued that a more efficient economic engine can easily absorb this additional cost, it is important to remember that Euroland is not noted for its efficiency and innovation. Take sluggish, socialist-leaning countries, tie them together with a new layer of uncontrolled bureaucrats and what is the result? An economic powerhouse, or something that more closely resembles the old USSR -- a socialist, centralized, supra-national bureaucratic backwater? Internal stresses will grow as additional socialist laws and programs are put in place to accommodate various "unfair" economic and political dislocations. One nation's economic advantage becomes another's political problem. The Eurocrats will be asked to step in and "fix" things.
Euroland officials are already admitting privately that decision-making by the current European Council is already close to unworkable. And they fear it could be paralysed when up to 10 extra nations from southern and eastern Europe join in 2004. Their solution? Add a new management layer, an "
EU super council" comprised of predominate Euroland countries. And so it grows.
Lastly, a super-power needs to project power to protect its interests. With the exception of Britain, none of the other countries is willing to do this. What Euroland is doing is disarming unilaterally. Even Britain's current support of the US could be considered an anomaly. Few of Labor's members want any part of the Iraq scenarios.
So we are left with a Euroland with a growing beauracracy, a shrinking military, and a monetary system that has yet to prove itself in the fires of recession.
A superpower? Don't bet on it.
Please don't tell Jack Van Impe it will hurt his book sales.