[Goose]

While this  may be the wish of a fool, I still believe that Western Europe, maybe even including everything West of the current Russian Border, will have to learn to abide by Benjamin Franklins famous comment, "Either we hang together or we hang separately".  I am not sure that the dysfunctional relationships of many European Nations is any more messed up than our own political disfunction. I believe size matters going forward.

It is IMO indeed an interesting subject. I actually agree that everything West of the current Russian border does need to "hang together". The question is what form should/must this take? The government brought forth by Franklin et. al. was not the one described by the constitution we have now, but rather the Articles of Confederation. I would argue that the government envisioned when the Constitution was enacted was quite different than the government we have today. Arguably, the US could have made different organizational choices (as we originally did).

For the past 70 years or so "Europe" had an overall protective umbrella of NATO. Most (but not all) of Europe joined into a common market. For 45 years the eastern part of Europe was part of the Warsaw Pact for "defense" and all the Russian satellite nations were in their own "customs union". This actually worked pretty well in most cases. When Russia divested itself of the Warsaw Pact, the eastern European nations joined NATO. From a military point of view, these nations were "hanging together" and arguably NATO met (and meets) their external security needs.

The issues in the EU are IMO mostly based on the requirements of a common currency without a common government and a common identity. The US had problems with the Articles of Confederation, and at that point we didn't even have a common currency. We had a somewhat nebulous identity, where most people just wanted to deal with local issues and "government" wasn't that important. When that was deemed unworkable, we were able to create (with difficulty) a federal system mostly because regional differences were minimal. State government had always been democratic and fairly non-invasive. The nations of Europe OTOH have generated very strong national loyalties and have been anything but democratic (like say monarchies or dictatorships :-) and anything but non invasive.

The EU is trying to "evolve" to a federal structure (in some cases utilizing "stealth" :-). The common currency was a big first step, although many EU nations did not and do not "qualify". I don't think that will work. They will go through all the problems without enough of a "central government authority" to solve them. There is no consensus that this central authority should exist and even those who are willing to believe a more powerful "EU" is needed, they all disagree on what form it should take. I have a friend in Australia who argues that you cannot have a "truly democratic" government if your population exceeds about 20 million people. After that, elements of authoritarianism from the federal bureaucracy are increasingly necessary to make things "work". Thus, Australia ceased to be a "democracy" after 2004 :-). Of course, California did also after 1971.

While "size" does indeed matter, both in military security and economic well being, IMO strength matters at least as much and arguably more. A country that is large but economically weak is in double trouble. It is so big it can't afford to defend it's entire land area and therefore is "ripe for the plucking" by other states who want the land. However even a "strong" state like Israel has a problem if it is "too small". Inadequate strategic depth means it can be overwhelmed by superior numbers. There is little room to retreat but holding the ground everywhere simultaneously against superior numbers is almost impossible. Israel must therefore remain permanently in a "state of defense", and even that may not be enough.

In the past, military alliances have allowed states to obtain security without the necessity of political union (or even having the same political system). There are many viable ways forward for Europe that don't require a closer political union. There are also many ways forward that requires varying degrees of closer political union.  IMO in the "near term", Europe should concentrate on the former. The latter, if it ever comes, is far enough in the future that an alternative must be adopted in the present to ensure the "closer union" option even exists in the future.

[Goose]

While this  may be the wish of a fool, I still believe that Western Europe, maybe even including everything West of the current Russian Border, will have to learn to abide by Benjamin Franklins famous comment, "Either we hang together or we hang separately".  I am not sure that the dysfunctional relationships of many European Nations is any more messed up than our own political disfunction. I believe size matters going forward.

It is IMO indeed an interesting subject. I actually agree that everything West of the current Russian border does need to "hang together". The question is what form should/must this take? The government brought forth by Franklin et. al. was not the one described by the constitution we have now, but rather the Articles of Confederation. I would argue that the government envisioned when the Constitution was enacted was quite different than the government we have today. Arguably, the US could have made different organizational choices (as we originally did).

For the past 70 years or so "Europe" had an overall protective umbrella of NATO. Most (but not all) of Europe joined into a common market. For 45 years the eastern part of Europe was part of the Warsaw Pact for "defense" and all the Russian satellite nations were in their own "customs union". This actually worked pretty well in most cases. When Russia divested itself of the Warsaw Pact, the eastern European nations joined NATO. From a military point of view, these nations were "hanging together" and arguably NATO met (and meets) their external security needs.

The issues in the EU are IMO mostly based on the requirements of a common currency without a common government and a common identity. The US had problems with the Articles of Confederation, and at that point we didn't even have a common currency. We had a somewhat nebulous identity, where most people just wanted to deal with local issues and "government" wasn't that important. When that was deemed unworkable, we were able to create (with difficulty) a federal system mostly because regional differences were minimal. State government had always been democratic and fairly non-invasive. The nations of Europe OTOH have generated very strong national loyalties and have been anything but democratic (like say monarchies or dictatorships :-) and anything but non invasive.

The EU is trying to "evolve" to a federal structure (in some cases utilizing "stealth" :-). The common currency was a big first step, although many EU nations did not and do not "qualify". I don't think that will work. They will go through all the problems without enough of a "central government authority" to solve them. There is no consensus that this central authority should exist and even those who are willing to believe a more powerful "EU" is needed, they all disagree on what form it should take. I have a friend in Australia who argues that you cannot have a "truly democratic" government if your population exceeds about 20 million people. After that, elements of authoritarianism from the federal bureaucracy are increasingly necessary to make things "work". Thus, Australia ceased to be a "democracy" after 2004 :-). Of course, California did also after 1971.

While "size" does indeed matter, both in military security and economic well being, IMO strength matters at least as much and arguably more. A country that is large but economically weak is in double trouble. It is so big it can't afford to defend it's entire land area and therefore is "ripe for the plucking" by other states who want the land. However even a "strong" state like Israel has a problem if it is "too small". Inadequate strategic depth means it can be overwhelmed by superior numbers. There is little room to retreat but holding the ground everywhere simultaneously against superior numbers is almost impossible. Israel must therefore remain permanently in a "state of defense", and even that may not be enough.

In the past, military alliances have allowed states to obtain security without the necessity of political union (or even having the same political system). There are many viable ways forward for Europe that don't require a closer political union. There are also many ways forward that requires varying degrees of closer political union.  IMO in the "near term", Europe should concentrate on the former. The latter, if it ever comes, is far enough in the future that an alternative must be adopted in the present to ensure the "closer union" option even exists in the future.