Mark, you wrote:

"What is it with this "European Union" idea? I understand why European nations would want to have "free-trade" agreements with each other and other friendly arrangements. But, why did they think a single currency was a good idea? Unlike the United States, the European countries have distinct national histories, languages and cultures. You can't just wrap them up together and say "EU." Am I wrong?"


Mark, in short: after the steel and coal industries of core European states integrated, the necessity and benefits of free movement of capital, persons, services and goods was recognized. This was realized during the fifties and sixties. I'll skip the political developments, too long to elaborate here. During the seventies it was realized that in addition to the free movement of capital etc... a single currency was the natural addition to the set of measures, because of:

*elimination of the high transaction costs during valuta changings
*ending the uncertainty inherent with unstable exchange rates
*easy price comparing for citizens of EU states travelling within the EU
*a more efficient common market, thus creating additional jobs

There's even an international benefit: the euro strengthens the international monetary stability.

As a matter of fact, indeed, because of the strong national identities you can't just wrap us together and label us "EU". The whole process started with an idea of Robert Shuman in the early fifties and right now we have arrived at the point where an EU "government", the Commission/Council of Ministers and a EU "House of Representatives", the European Parliament, are consolidating their hold on a lot of events normally considered the realm of the separate states. When wil this process end? I don't know, possibly when the EU will have become something like the USA and will then be called the USE, say in 30 years or something. So it's really not "just", if it's gonna go this way the whole thing will have lasted 80 years.

Now Mark, I'm fully aware of the tremendous costs and financial abuses inherent to this process, as Tom, Scott and Kerry repeatedly regularly point out, justified even. I have never doubted that it will be, and has been, a "long, hard slog". But as a European, I'm willing to live with that. I am FOR the Union, I'm just AGAINST it being led mostly by leftists.

Consider the following situation: if leaders like Washington and Madison had not recognized at a very early stage that a Union of the then 13 states was necessary, where would you be now? What we now know as the USA would be an amalgam of some 50 republics, each with their petty policies and sensitivities, perhaps (certainly?) warring each other from time to time. Texas dollars being stronger currencies than, say, Maine dollars or even worse, Colorado dollars (heh heh). A unified and common Foreign Policy? Forget it. California, Texas, New Mexico, Florida et al want to intervene in WWI in Europe but Wyoming, Kansas, Missouri etc. don't want to... sheesh what a mess...

If you feel uneasy about a stronger EU here's some consolating viewpoint: just as we in Europe were beneficiaries from the US's Federalism (during WWI and WWII), so the US might be someday in the future, be glad to have us, your ancestors, as a powerful ally.

I believe that in 30-50 years the world might well be divided in five or six powerful blocs. China, very likely a Latino-American bloc (there's already the Mercosur like our ECCS in the 50's), India, furthermore maybe a bloc around Japan, I read Japan has aspirations to lead something like the EU, Russia and allies... and USA/USE, unlike the others with common roots and values. I said it before, I see us more like future partners than like adversaries.

Btw, CONGRATS with your blog! Will try to hop in from time to time and leave some comments. See you at the Iraqis too.