saturn wrote:better trade options, more security, improved co-operation on fighting crime, environment policies, general health policies, more control of the national governments on "Brussel" (i.e. center of EU power)
And yes, more political solidarity and one stance on foreign policy (and no, it won't be only France, Germany's voice)
What do you mean by 'better trade options'?
And I'm not sure I follow the more security. It seems that having to show identification between countries would actually provide more security than otherwise. I can understand the improved crime-fighting cooperation, but by the same token, if I had to show a passport to enter every state in the US, then it would be fairly easy to track down any criminals to begin with. I don't know what the current extradition laws are like over there, but isn't it fairly easy to have criminals prosecuted where their crime was commited in most European countries already?
As far as general health policies, you're a doctor with a lot of experience in that area so I should probably take your word on it. But if there are centralized decisions made on healthcare, and everyone in the EU pays taxes for public healthcare, how long do you think it would take for serious issues to arise about cultural things such as the Netherlands' more lax drug laws, and the health issues that arise from them? People will complain about paying for drug addicts' healthcare until something has to be done about it.
And you say that larger, more influential countries won't have a stronger voice in foreign policy matters than all the others, but that doesn't sound very realistic to me. Any delegated, decision-making body is a power struggle by definition, and to assume that the countries with the most at stake, the most invested, the largest populations, the largest economies, and the strongest previous foreign connections will allow the other countries to have a strong influence over the way they operate and/or make decisions, is a mighty dangerous assumption.
Also to consider is the reason the politicians have been pushing for the constitution to begin with: political solidarity for more influence, economic solidarity for more influence... These are selfish ideals to begin with, so it seems like quite a stretch to me that the people drafting this constitution are doing it for "the greater good of all of the peoples of Europe" as much as they're doing it out of a desire for more power and influence.
And I want to be clear that I'm not trying to undermine Euros' quest for more power and influence - I think you should have it. But I also think there are other ways to have it without putting the entire population under a single umbrella of law.
Also, like seremtan said earlier, historically democratic/republican representation has only worked when it is a grassroots movement from the people. If the people aren't yearning for it, and the politicians are, then I don't see how it's much different from what the best-case-scenario in Iraq could have been -- a people who don't respect what they have because they did not ask for it, and possibly later a growing resentment when they find that their identities and self-determination might be in the hands of someone else they don't even know, who is claiming to represent them.
... and english beer will still suck big time 
)
