[wolf78]

"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.

[AFPhys]

Several responses your post. I'm not going to rewrite what you said - I hope my additions are fairly clear as to what I'm referring - I'll go pretty much in order.

1) The "almost unrestricted immigration within the EU" clauses of the EU Constitution and the enormous difference in social benefits and situations at present would necessitate that various countries rapidly implement fairly similar programs. If they didn't, people will move to where they have the greatest benefits... trivial example: When earning, people will want to be where there are low taxes (and probably less gov't services) When retired/needy - they'll go to areas of greater services, and thus higher taxes. That means snowballing problems. The changes have to be much slower than this - more step-by-step.

And I agree, it would be better for the whole world if Europe could be a bit more unified - not as a counterweight to the US, but to keep from killing each other - both economically and militarily.

2) The way I ended up posting "challenge the US" was, I agree, too simplistic. I meant to write, "I think, IN PART, because of the french Euroweenies pressure of trying to challenge the US." Definitely several other factors, too, including the Muslim immigration problem you didn't mention.

Thanks for the conversation about this.