Constitution for the European Union

I'm not really informed about European Union politics, but what I always hear is that its structure needs to be reformed. Another serious problem are the different opinions about US politics. If the EU doesn't find a consensus, it can't gain all its political power. Many eastern European countries, with their history of communist dictatorship, are more likely to back the Iraq war.

I think it's time to include Eastern European states. What had the EU been so far? A Western European club, but not a continent.

But what is maybe even more important: EU peoples need a vision. In my view, Europeans don't notice the significance of the EU's potential and they don't feel clinging to it. There are no myths. There could be many: how eastern and western European states now cross the border of the former "iron curtain", how Europe could take responsibility in world politics, how this awful past full of war changed to a community which makes war between European countries unthinkable and so on... Isn't "United in Diversity!" an attractive motto? And this European constitution, isn't this a really outstanding event?
But there are no myths, no stories, no expectations, no enthusiasm…!
Instead politicians discretely discuss about power proportions…

Some think that people would be more interested in EU affairs if they'd be more integrated into its system. This could be a first step to an emotionally united Europe. I don't know.
I guess that Europe appeared rather like an US peninsula to its people (e.g. English language, economy, McDonalds, movies&music). The war may changed it a little bit, but not at all.

Anyway I still naively hope that European politicians will act in responsibility and consciousness of the world, and not just in consciousness of European economy…

When I read your post Hel, I recognized, that you're really not informed about the things which happens in europe but also in the world.

One of the things you sayid is: "Another serious problem are the different opinions about US politics. If the EU doesn't find a consensus, it can't gain all its political power. Many eastern European countries, with their history of communist dictatorship, are more likely to back the Iraq war."

1st problem:

The difference in the history between europe and the US is, that the US was a growing state and everywhere there are equal traditions and so on. At europe you had over more than thousand years different traditions, way of life and such things in every country. I hope you can imagine, that growing together after such a long time (since rome) tooks very lot of time. Or could you imagine that the states, canada and mexico become one state? And also the politic needs time to get an consensus about long time.

2nd problem:

But when I read, that many eastern European countries are more likely to back the Iraq war, I was laughing and crying in one way. Many of this nation hoped that they can get economic advantages, and the eastern European states still need it. By the way, only 20 % of all people in the world lived in countries which sayid yes to this war, and many of this people were against it. I think this discussion should be a part of an other topic.

Than you sayid: "I think it's time to include Eastern European states. What had the EU been so far? A Western European club, but not a continent. "

1st: Get informed!
2nd: Think about it!
3rd: Write!

There's no other way...

When you're getting informed you will recognize, that Hungary, Poland, Czech republic, Latvia, hungary and several other eastern European states join the EU in May 1st, 2004.


I'm sorry, cause I have no further time in the moment. I continue my post soon...


[size=7]You've found mistakes? Beware of it...[/size=7]

George, in another thread, long ago, i went to great lengths to address this question--long even by my long-winded standards. I don't intend to repeat the exercise, although if i can find it, i'll link it here.

As i see it, Europe will have to address the same issues which confronted the American states in Philadelphia in 1787. Equal representation will always raise an objection from those paying the most for the Union's activities. But all of these nations enjoy sovereignty, and would be unlikely to willingly surrender that sovereignty to a representational assembly in which their relatively small contribution made them mute. I'll see if i can go get a link for this, because i discussed the issues in detail. Often, in discussing this, i've had Europeans glibly and smugly assert that Europe is not the United States, and the issues aren't the same. I say, Nonsense, the recent brouhaha with Spain and Poland is evidence that the sovereignty issue will be far more important than the starry-eyed Unionists rushing toward the future have been willing to admit.

Here is a link to a thread which Nimh started on the topic in the spring:

How should the EU be governed? Eur Council vs Eur Commission[/b][/color]

Beginning at about the middle of page two, i went into a long analysis of the issues which Europe would face. Europeans might object, as i've already noted, that the two situations are not analogous. I disagree. The former colonies, barely bound together by the Articles of Confederation, decided in 1787 that a new government needed to be constituted, because the old was ineffective. The issues of the form(s) of representation, the powers of a legislature, the courts and an executive are virtually eternal questions of human governance. Those with an interest in this topic might find reading the earlier thread useful. Nimh comments at length, and he is a percipient observer.