I may be hopelessly dense, but I don't see how such disparate social welfare systems, or economic policies, can possibly exist for long in the EU as this Constitution is crafted.
There will be immediate pressure to bring them into line with each other, and for the central government to conduct most of the taxation and law making to get into accordance with this Constitution. The central bureaucracy has far too much power in comparison with the nations' governments, and in order to keep the currency somewhat stable and people from migrating rapidly from "bad" to "good" situations (however they would define that) that central government will use that power and rapidly force an equalization of such programs and tax policy.
If there is to be a successful bringing together of Europe, I believe it has to be more like our Confederation of States - a very weak central government with very limited and defined powers and responsibility (centralized military? guidelines suggested for laws the nations adopt voluntarily? etc.) and most power remaining with the nations. That situation would have to exist for some time, and gradually be expanded as the countries grow more interdependent and similarly based. This EU concept tried to go too fast toward unification, I think, possibly because of the french Euroweenies pressure of trying to challenge the US.
"The central bureaucracy has far too much power in comparison with the nations' governments, and in order to keep the currency somewhat stable and people from migrating rapidly from "bad" to "good" situations (however they would define that) that central government will use that power and rapidly force an equalization of such programs and tax policy."
That is indeed part of the problem, and yes, there are attempts at a "harmonization" of taxes and welfare systems within the EU. But I don't see how the proponents of this strategy (namely France, the German left etc.) can push this through. There's an almost equally strong trend towards more competition amongst the member states. Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, they wouldn't allow for a centralized taxation to happen. And yes, that is good!
"If there is to be a successful bringing together of Europe, I believe it has to be more like our Confederation of States - a very weak central government with very limited and defined powers and responsibility (centralized military? guidelines suggested for laws the nations adopt voluntarily? etc.) and most power remaining with the nations. That situation would have to exist for some time, and gradually be expanded as the countries grow more interdependent and similarly based."
That's more or less what I think. In a number of areas, the EU is definitely a good thing, i.e. common free market, defense cooperation (within NATO) and common protection of the EU borders (like the mediterranean sea) etc. .
"This EU concept tried to go too fast toward unification, I think, possibly because of the french Euroweenies pressure of trying to challenge the US."
In my humble opinion that view is much to simplistic. There are a number of other factors, that prove equally, if not more important.
1.) One was German reunification: The German public never wanted the introduction of the EURO, but that was the price for a French "yes" to a united Germany. Mitterand feared a larger Germany, so he basically wanted to embrace so tight, that Germany couldn't move without France allowing it to.
Thatcher didn't like the idea either, but Bush sr. was able to convince her. That's why most (western) Germans still speak extremely favorably of Bush sr.
2.) With all the new members like Poland or the Baltic, the window for "franco-german domination" (if there ever was such a thing) is closing fast, and Chirac sees it. So the French and the German left tried to hasten the European unification. Failure was certain and well deserved. Bye, bye, Gerhard, bye, bye Jacques!
So you see, it isn't always about the U.S., especially outside France this line of thinking plays only an unimportant role.