Pacified, yes. United, I'm not so sure. Why is a politically united Europe a good idea? As I wrote in my commentary this morning on the EU constitution referenda, politics is local. And the people of the various European countries have differing ideas, preferences, national identities, and so on.

The same predisposition of much of Europe towards Code Napoleon-style all-encompassing civil law as opposed to Anglosphere-style common law predisposes them to the EU constitution we've seen. Any revision will be much like the first.

So treaties, yes. Free trade, yes. Political union, no.

Do you mean to say that they should NOT be focusing on creating a true single state?

I can see Europe uniting under something like the Articles of Confederation: a weak central government with limited power to tax and regulate, whose primary functions are to mediate inter-state disputes and handle foreign policy and military matters. I cannot see them uniting under a federal constitution, never mind a comprensive union that eliminates the independence of the individual states.

On the other hand, I can see the EU Core of France, Germany, Luxembourg and Belgium uniting under a federal system. Over time, this might even grow slowly, with other groups choosing to federate with the new entity (what was it Porphyrogenitus used to call it, the Restored Carolingian Empire?) if the new entity has sufficient economic and political benefits to offer.

What I don't think will happen at all is any kind of "United States of Europe" or even any kind of strong central government - accountable or otherwise.

Despite the triumphant claims of the European elite that they have learned the lessons from the past and have achieved some enlightened transnational state of being, it has become quite clear to me since 9/11 that they haven't learned the right lessons. The Continental prediliction for anti-democratic technocracy and socialism/anti-liberalism will continue to generate endless variations on those themes. Their continued hostility to "anglo-saxonisme"/economic liberalism (which is actually what these countries need) means that they will not be inclined to critique and change their fundamental prediliction, which is the source of the problem.

I agree with Dave that future constitutional revisions will exhibit the same flaws and characteristics. Certainly Europe would be better served by an Articles of Confederation-style agreement, but I don't see that happening. After all if French voters felt this constitution was too liberal what will they think of an "A of C" constitution?

Economically unification is a good thing for the same reason NAFTA, CAFTA and other such agreements are good. But politically, not so much. I mentioned recently in a comment at vodkapundit that I though from an American perspective NATO was the most significant transnational European institution, because it functions as a de facto peace treaty that is guaranteed by American power. Americans want to ensure that we are not going to have to fight another European war. NATO allows us to provide a secure environment within which Europe can work to solve their problems of unassimilated Muslims and the socialist welfare state.