During European Union summits, even the most ardent devotees of the Financial Times may find themselves skipping to page 4. The intense negotiations among Europe’s 27 countries over legal niceties and constitutional reforms appear as relevant to most Americans as, say, the latest cricket scores.

Could this ennui with European governance issues be shortsighted? Could America find herself challenged in the near future not only by the Chinese and the Indians, but also by an energized European Union?

That would be one takeaway from a recent off-the-record conference held in Salzburg, Austria, that dealt with globalization. (The locale for the forum was slightly incongruous, in that Salzburg is resolutely Old World; there’s nary a Starbucks nor a Wal-Mart within the city limits.) Several leading academics and press types enthusiastically predicted that a golden age for Europe was upon us. A broader European Union, progress toward a common economic purpose, and some hint that the governments of Europe have learned a thing or two about business incentives fuel these assessments, which led some to predict that Europe will outperform America in years to come.

Underlying much of the discussion was the notion that Europeans are happier than Americans because of a well-founded confidence in their welfare states. The safety net that catches those who fall out of work, for instance, and which pays for housing, food, rent, and even cell phones (in some Scandinavian countries) for those without jobs, was held up as a source of strength and comfort. Much was made especially of the gaps in America’s health care coverage, as contrasted to Europe’s model of free medical care. In short, the protection of the individual by the state was presented as a powerful competitive weapon.

Europeans are hailed not only for their domestic policies but are also credited with having a more constructive approach to international relations. Multilateralism and “shared sovereignty” are lauded as the new order, while America, misled by her cowboy president (and by his predecessor), tends to go her own way.

Furthermore, some argue that the European Union has demonstrated global leadership by its contribution of important institutions and initiatives such as the World Court and the Kyoto Protocol.

Evidence of E.U. solidarity is to be found, according to some, in the 80,000 pages of regulations imposed on its members. Its success, finally, can be measured by the eagerness with which countries in other regions of the world, such as Latin America and Africa, are looking to form similar regional affiliations.

Not everyone sees trends in Europe today in such a positive light. The view of many doing business in Europe is that declining birth rates and differing economic and social goals make European negotiations fractious and its outlook questionable. Though the enlargement of the union has created a bigger market, the economic needs of old Europe differ greatly from those of the newly admitted Eastern Bloc countries, for example.

The need for, and simultaneous resistance to, immigration is an explosive issue in many countries and challenges the group’s policies, as in the case of admitting Turkey. (That President Sarkozy of France apparently received only 6% of Muslim votes in the last election underscores the immigrant problems in that country.) Despite the emergence of more enlightened leaders, such as Chancellor Merkel of Germany and Mr. Sarkozy, the overall reliance on the welfare state continues to restrain the region’s prospects, according to several political and business leaders.

This latter viewpoint appears more in concert with the tempestuous E.U. summit that was simultaneously taking place in Brussels. Poland and Britain appeared determined to scuttle a newly revised constitution, which was put forward after the unceremonious trouncing of the last such effort in 2005 by the French and the Dutch. This time, French leaders will not be so foolish as to put the constitution to a popular vote but rather will be asking legislators, who are presumed to have a more sophisticated approach, to pass on the new guidelines.

At the end of the day, despite Poland’s dislike for a proposed new voting method, which it accuses of favoring large countries such as Germany, it is likely that the European Union will have its new constitution. It will be a much watered-down and weakened document, especially as it relates to the undeniably crucial aspect of open markets. In order to secure France’s participation, the words “undistorted competition” had to be deleted from the proposed treaty. That is, the goal of free market competition was dropped with a thud.

This does not sound like an organization ready to run its trade competitors out of town. While the enlargement of the European Union has led to population and GDP numbers that rival those of America, the ability to take advantage of that critical mass will depend on a shared vision, which has not yet materialized.

The ability of the European Union to step into the leadership role that America has claimed for a generation will be frustrated by an inability to respond in a timely manner to economic or security crises; at the moment, the organization lacks the requisite institutions for speedy action.

During the E.U. negotiations, the head of Poland shocked his counterparts by reflecting that had it not been for World War II, Poland’s population would be a great deal larger than it is; therefore, the country should be given a louder voice. You can almost imagine the hush in the room.

When driving to Austria from Germany, there is today, of course, no border control. On the site where the German officials used to check passports, there is nothing but green grass; the police huts have long since disappeared. On Austria’s side, the empty border control buildings still stand, as though ready if needed. One can’t help but wonder why.

peek10021@aol.com