One of the uniting factors is that our ancestors have spend lots of time to kill each other and we all don't want to repeat that.
So we're uniting out of a sense of guilt and a sense of fear? A poor reason to force people together is that in the past they have been unable to get on. A bad motive.

The problem for the 'yes' campaign in France was that it operated purely on fear tactics of what would happen if the constitution wasn't accepted and what would happen to Europe if it didn't go ahead. They promised nothing of benefits.

There is no guarentee that Europe will achieve more as a union. It may encourage exchange of ideas and free flow of labour markets, but there is also a danger that its underlying social agenda will lead to stiffling of creativity and limitations of innovation. France, Germany and Italy are currently suffering as a result of being united.

The European nations are very different, there are 20 official languages spoken by the European nations. There are over 500 other languages spoken in its member nations. Each nation has its own social agenda and its own cultural way of doing things, will a one size fits all scheme really work? I'd like it too but I'm sceptical.

Is Europe an example of many hands make light work as AdrianII suggests, or is it a case (with the expansion in particular) of too many cooks spoil the brough?