Asherman
The 'Treaty of Maastricht' (formally known as the Treaty on European Union) consisted of three main pillars: the European Communities, a common foreign and security policy, and enhanced cooperation in home (domestic) affairs and justice.
The post Maastricht treaties and reforms led to that, what is the EU of today.
I think, you are certainly right about the idea of a two chamber parliament, if we really should get something like 'United States of Europe'.
But I doubt that someone sincerely expects this to happen within the next couple of years.
"Future of the EU
Building on the limited economic and political goals of the ECSC, the countries of western Europe developed an unprecedented level of integration and cooperation. The degree of legal integration, supranational political authority, and economic integration in the EU greatly surpasses that of other international organizations. Indeed, although the EU has not replaced the nation-state, its institutions increasingly resemble a parliamentary democratic political system at the supranational level.
The EU's future is tied to the crucial issues of enlargement and institutional development. At the end of the Cold War, many of the formerly communist countries of eastern and central Europe applied for EU membership. However, their relative lack of economic development threatened to hinder their full integration into EU institutions. Toaddress this problem, the EU considered a stratified system under which subsets of countries would participate in some components of economic integration (e.g., a free trade area) but not in others (e.g., the single currency).
Some analysts argue that enlargement would stifle consensus and inhibit the development of Europe-wide foreign and security policies. In contrast, others contend that enlargement would encourage the reform of EU institutions and help member countries to address concerns about transparency and democratic control. Even those who favour enlargement, however, agree that appropriate timing of the process is crucial to the ultimate success of further political integration and institutional reform. The possibility that policy making would become less efficient with the accession of a dozen new members by 2010 was a major impetus for the Treaty of Nice, which attempted to reform the EU's institutions in anticipation of enlargement."
Matthew J. Gabel in: britannica. encyclopæ
There was an equal pay Civil Rights Act of 1963, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that provided for equality of minorities and women. Or something like that. c.i.
What Walter says, according to different polls (for which I will not give links, since they are on my personal biochemical hard disk), varies from nation to nation and from region to region in Europe.
An example. A majority of Basques say they consider themselves Basques, first of all; then European and, only in third place, Spaniards. This includes most Basques that are against more autonomy for their region.
In Madrid, the majority considered themselves Spaniards, in first place; then European and, only in third place, Castillian.
In Italy, a similar thing happens. With Northern regionalism-Europeism and Southern nationalism-Europeism.
fbaezer, If truth be told, the US is also split into different ideas of how this republic should be established even if we all call ourselves "Americans."
c.i.
Cicerone, I wouldn't say that America is "split" in any profound way. There are political differences between liberals and conservatives but even these are not as acute as they were in earlier periods, as for example during the Sixties. There are no issues today as divisive as civil rights or the Vietnam war.
Larry, To the extent that liberals and conservatives have a different philosophy for this country, we are "split" in a major way. This extreme difference does not necessarily equate to anything like the call for Quebec into a separate country in Canada, but it's serious enough for emotions to flare, and to stifle our government into nonaction. The last congress was one of the most inactive in the history of this country. That is serious business for the American people. c.i.
I believe differences are major, especially when one side wants an immoral war for political and financial gain!
The split between liberals and conservatives is not what crippled the last Congress. The inaction in the last session resulted from a backlash in both parties (remember Jeffords becoming an independent?) against a mindlessly aggressive, ideologically doctrinaire White House. Congress dislikes being dictated to, no matter who the President is, as FDR found out in his second term. As far as your point about how unhealthy the split between left and right in America is, what would you prefer? A country in which everyone thinks about politics in exactly the same way? That wuld be much MORE unhealthy and much more dangerous. I'll take the messy situation we have now because (as a believer in the dialectic) I believe through the clash of opposites, a higher synthesis and a higher good is created.
larry, I don't believe I've ever implied that differences should not exist in the US. As far as I'm concerned, it's a good way for checks and balances, and it's worked pretty well for this country. There are some things I am a conservative, and others where I'm a liberal. That's good enough for me! Even as a 'moderate,' most of my positions are not popular ones. c.i.
All I'm saying is that, while political differences certainly exist in the US, they are nowhere as sharp as they have been at earlier periods. That may change if Bush takes us into war with Iraq and the war goes badly. There is enough antiwar sentiment already that you may see a huge outpouring of opposition once the American body bags start coming home.
larry, It's not only the impending war with Iraq that Americans are worried about. It's jobs and our economy. c.i.
That's true, cicerone. But I don't see millions of people in the streets protesting about the economy. I do see them protesting about Iraq, however.
larry, We only see the results of polls that most Americans are worried about the economy - over the threat of Iraq. c.i.
in a week with the US on the verge of war, the U.N. in a rift with between super powers, N Korea having missile capability to light up the US west coast, economy in deep serious, etc etc etc, the american culture is glued to the Michael Jackson cartoon.
Dyslexia--don't confuse what the media is broadcasting with what most people are concerned about. If you did that with the Depression, you would conclude that more Americans cared about "Amos And Andy" than they did about FDR's New Deal.
Bush is a market major, we have a used car salesman appointed President and Rove control the airwaves. Americans don't go to the street for the economy - show me one place in the past when this happened. The polls have consistently come up - "it's the economy, stupid". So stupid creates another political "war" to fight. don Quixote fought windmills - this guy creates windmills.
Bill W, every time there has been a strike in American history it has been Americans "going to the street for the economy." Another example is the Bonus March during the Depression when WWI veterans marched on Washington demanding increased pensions.
Make that recent past larry, didn't mean that far back - certainly a lot of Americans in the street for the Great Depression.
Have a feeling Bush is going to put a lot of people on the streets - but not marching!
