Eastern European and The Balkans, since the days leading up to the Iraq War, have registered their displeasure with the condescending tone Chirac has taken with these newly democratic countries when he commented that "their views did not count."

Is Old Europe's arrogance and anti-americanism dividing the region and could this lead to new and stronger alliances for Eastern Europe and The Balkans outside the EU?

Arrogance of France boosts eastern Europe's admiration for US

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...2/22/weur22.xml
[When Poles were asked in a recent Wprost opinion poll to name countries they considered "friends", 50 per cent put America first, 34 per cent Germany and 25 per cent France. At the same time, 50 per cent considered Poland's greatest enemy to be Russia, 40 per cent said it was Germany and seven per cent Iraq.]

I think they will take a step away from Chirac and the "old Europe" because of Chirac's threats prior to the war in Iraq: Chirac Blasts EU candidates




Chirac, in the eyes of the Eastern Europen countries, is a man who obviosuly doesn't like others to make an opposite opinion and opposite stance on something from his views.

No I wouldn't say this will divide Europe. For a start, the expansion of the EU offers a lot to incoming nations, and they appear to want it. I haven't been a fan of comments coming from French sources, over NATO and the EU, but doubt it will harm Europe. There have been plenty internal fights, for example recently Britain/Spain vs Germany/France, but we are stll allies. There is no real anti French attitude in Britain.

That Pole....poll.... strikes me as a bit odd also. 90% of Poles think Germany and Russia are their greatest threats Either that poll isn't terribly accurate or the Poles know how to hold a grudge.

I have to agree with Robin. Chirac's attitude was mostly caused by anger at the disdain the Polish government showed in denying the EU to favor its alliance to the US.

In my opinion, these facts and reactions are to be put in the right context. The Polish are free at last from the iron grip of Russia and they believe (like other easren european democracies) that they owe a great deal the Americans for that freedom.

The West of Europe has a more distant relation to the US (especially France if you wish) because their current immediate situation isn't the result of America's policies but rather the foundation of the European Union. Hence the arrogant (yes, I said it) stance from Chirac to remind the Polish what and where their priorities are to be in the near future.

Once again, our leaders were following their own agendas and preoccupations. The EU has had its internal fights and quarrels in the past. They will happen again for sure but the EU won't fall because of them. It's a work in progress, a work for progress.

In other word's Chirac was angry because these nations dare voice their own opinion even if it contradicted his own. You call that "disdain"? Let's not switch the blame here, Chirac's remark were highly impolite and he should apologize publicly.


"Remind"? "are to be"? arrogant is putting it mildly, call his threat what it is: aggressive bullying.

If the French Government position is to stand for the position of the majority of western Europe, then the choice for eastern Europe is a clear one. Yes, there is a rift and I welcome it under the current circumstances.

I have to admit, the distinct impression I get of Chirac is he loves to disagree with people, sometimes just for the sake of it (hey! a bit like me ). However, no matter how spiteful or arrogant some of his comments may seem, they hardly represent that of what has been called 'old Europe'.

I don't know anyone from eastern Europe, but one of my best friends is of Latvian descent and he visited recently. The impression brough back with him was that generally Latvians seemed proud to be an independent nation in Europe.

There is too much that ties Europe together. Eurovision song contests, Champions League football, thousands of years of history in which we repeatedly beat each other up. It may all sound silly, but its who we are. We're a very silly continent with lots of different and bizarre cultures who enjoy mocking each other. I read in a Bill Bryson novel that there was not American equivalent of the English expression 'taking the p*ss'. Well we are always taking the, ahem, out of each other, but it doesnt mean anything. If not for the advantages offered by EU membership, then for these at least

In many ways I think I may be more patriotic of my continent than either of my nationalities, if such a thing is possible. And Chirac blasted Britain just as much as anyone else. Water off a ducks back - theres more to life than holding petty grudges against bullies.

I certainly hope so, it's one thing to disagree, but to threaten (as in Chirac's threat over EU membership) is simply unacceptable.
Chirac's statements were more than spiteful, they were meant to threaten eastern Europe into submission. To make matters worse, much of the French public actually agreed with the threat. (An error seems to have obscured my link... it was an article for "Novinite" [a Bulgarian news source] I'll try to find it) and the government refused to back down from it's stance.

Is this the western European stance? Is it all right for the "major players" ( France and Germany, mostly France ) to demand agreement from eastern Europe?

If so eastern Europe should separate itself diplomatically from western Europe. If this is what it has to offer ( I see that you say it isn't and I certainly hope so, though recent events have not reassured me) then Poland, Bulgaria, etc. are smart not to put up with this nonsense.

I would agree with solidarity, but not in the context of that statement, and certainly not on subjects like opposing a nation because one EU member says so.

Certainly isn't the attitude in my country, which could be described as one of the 'playas' If general French opinion is with Chiracs remarks then I see a problem. But I still see no risk to the expansion of the EU. Not to seem nasty, which I know this is going to sound, but it's not as if it is someone dangerous spouting insults. There are more of Eastern Europe and incoming members than there is off France.

To put it in the context of say a gang, I would see France as the little fella who has been around since the gang was formed but doesn't quite hold the authority that he would like. Ten new guys come along and listen to the angry little chap, but if I was them I'd say "Yeah, whatever" and join the gang anyway

ahh but hypocricy does ensue.

Bush sez: "either you're with us or against us." During his war on terror speech.

Chirac sez:http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/18/135848.shtml

well, i won't get into how ONE statement made by Bush could seem so repugnant to our anti-war friends yet Chirac's statement can get a pass by these same people. Ahh the politics of keepin it real.

Suffice it to say, the former-communist eastern european countries, as WELL as Britian were repulsed by Old Europe's contention that the new guys "were brought up right."

I still think there is no risk of split in the EU: Bulgaria and Romania still remain on the applicant list and Poland is a members as of next year. If France did indeed go ahead and try to block their applications, they would have little to no support. If it continues the only way I can see it going is France distancing itself from the rest of Europe, not Eastern Europe suddenly deciding all that hard work trying to get in should be abandoned.

Chiracs bad behaviour and hypcritical stance (the EU describes itself as "a family of democratic European countries, committed to working together for peace and prosperity") will only bring turmoil to France, not to the EU or the expansion members.

Good luck. Chirac has a huge ego on his shoulders and he thinks he is emperor of the EU member and the candidates. He thinks he can bos them around and tell them what to do


Robin:

Agreed. The hypocrisy of France will bring more and more hate towards France.

Found the link...

French People "Share" Chirac's View on Bulgaria
So I think I'll alter my statement. The French government claims their threat was supported by the French people. I hope that's not true

Lol! I hope it isn't true as well! I find it hard to believe that it is. But then....if it is......oh dear

At least I am safe. When i visited France when i was younger with my family, we were always asked "Are you English?" when we went to shops and restaurants, and they seemed to have a worried look on their face. When my mum replied that we were Scottish (she's the only one who can speak French well) they would always immediately perk up - "Ah. Ecosse! Ecosse! Oui!" and start smiling and laughing. Very strange. Maybe something to do with what is called the Auld Alliance between Scotland and France, maybe something to do with both nations having celtic origins. Whatever it was, generally those we came into contact with were always overjoyed that we weren't English, or so it seemed.

Well I found it strange anyway, I don't know if anyone can enlighten me as to why this was! But I guess I could see how strong supporters of Chirac might go along with whatever is said.

We've switched from the original subject to analyze the specific relation between France and Eastern Europe.

I don't think the whole French population agrees blindly with Chirac's views and stances. I've made it clear before that I personally don't even though I see myself on the right of the French political spectrum.

Anyway, France is not the only country of the current EU and Chirac is not the only president around. There were problems before, there will be problems again. For instance, look at Austria's reaction when time came to accept the Czech candidature. They put certain safety conditions, in order to have a dangerous nuclear plant closed before they would agree on anything. They threatened to veto the coming of the Czech republic of the failing reactors were not turned off at once.

Like I said before, Europe is a work in progress. We are all different people with different backgrounds and ways of life. Building the EU is as hard as trying to put the US and Mexico together in one country! It wouldn't be impossible, but definitely difficult.

We French are very proud of our cultural heritage. There have been human settlements for more than 200.000 years in some parts of the country and we have a very long history as a people, whether we lived under empire, kingdom or republic. We have given the world some of its most talented people too : artists, leaders, discoverers, craftsmen, etc. Read books about us and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

I don't think we are the best people in the world because of that. I don't think we are always right and knowledgeable on all matters. Anyone saying : "I know better than you" in the name of his/her country would be incredibly cocky and shallow.

There are people out there who don't like us and don't share our ideas and ideals. We are French and we act as French, whether other governments or nations like it or not. Whether we like it or not sometimes too! But we are part of the European band, no matter what happens!

On a softer note, I consider myself lucky to know and talk to foreigners on a daily basis : it's very interesting and enlightening. I have very personal ties with the United States and I've met and known many different people from various countries : Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, Switzerland, Israel, Tunisia, Canada and of course the USA. I've met these people through family and friends, through living in these countries or just visiting, through leisure or work.

I've come to discover a few interesting facts :

1. everyone is afraid of foreigners to some degree (they don't understand them)
2. everyone can be nice to you to a large degree (when you're open and friendly)
3. everyone wants peace for themselves and the ones they love

When I see the difficulties within Europe and the different opinions, I try to remember what my journeys abroad taught me.

Well here is a loaded question and no mistake.

First. I find it weird, even amusing, yet also irritating, to be refered to as 'Old' Europe. Especially since the phrase was coined by a cold war dinosaur like Donald Rumsfeld!
Despite the long history of Europe, the EU is younger than the United States, so young in fact it has a long way to go before it reaches maturity and yet, we are now constantly subjected to this intentional (for how else is it to be understood?) slur of being 'Old' ?

As if the nations of Eastern Europe, with their mind boggling decrepid soviet era infrastructure's and ancient cultural heritage, are some how 'Young'?


Second. I find it strange that having a difference of opinion with the government of the USA some how qualifies us in Western Europe as being 'arrogant and anti American'!
Where is the arrogance that so overshadows that of the Bush administration?

Because Jaques Chirac voices an opinion about nations seeking membership of the EU and yet openly siding with an opponent? How is that arrogant? Arrogance would dictate he denied them of a choice, which he did not. He merely pointed out that the core of the EU had a strong opinon on the Iraq war, and if the countries of Eastern Europe did not agree with that, then there would be problems with their joining the EU.

Much as he annoys me, Jaques Chirac had every right and obligation to call these nations into line. His wording may have left a lot to be desired but the underlying truth of the threat is valid.

If those nations of Eastern Europe wish to turn their backs on the EU, then they should not be surprised if the rest of the EU shut the door!


Third. Disregarding the slur of 'Old' Europe, need I remind every one that Jaques Chirac does not speak for the EU, Western Europe, or even the people of France.

When crunch time comes, Chirac (or his successor) will vote as s/he is told to, because national, and continental interests are far more important than any division of opinions regarding Iraq.
The EU's interests are the main priority of the EU, and the self delusion of any individual politicians within the EU, regarding such matters as membership are in truth nothing more than feints in a far larger game.

Or in other words, Chirac scored a point over the nations in Eastern Europe which grants him a better advantage in the ongoing negotiations.

As the EU forms and the boundries between nations blurs ever more, it is of prime imortance for each nation to retain every advantage it can as it moves from independent nation, to EU state.

You don't consider the French government's stance arrogant? Allow me to explain.

1.Jaques Chirac called the decision by these nations to support the Us position on Iraq "childish". That is an arrogant stance.

2. "call these nations into line" That in itself is quite an arrogant remark. They weren't out of line like a bunch of naughty children they simply dared to agree with the US stance on Iraq when France and Germany did not. That's "not out of line" it's the right of a sovereign nation to form its own policy. This kind of attitude is exactly why some suspect a rift between eastern and western Europe. To actually see agree with what Chirac said is.. stunning


How exactly in disagreement with France and Germany tantamount to turing their backs of the EU. Much they be obligated to tow the line for the rest of their existence if they are to have any hopes of joining the alliance. Arrogance in the extreme.


Any yet you imply that by disagreeing with him the eastern European nation have turned their backs on Europe. Of course Chirac speaks for the French people on some level. He is their elected president...


I haven't seen another nation voice support for his sickening remarks. How is that a victory?

Turnea



Yes, but I did say his wording left a lot to be desired...




Your right, they were not out line like school children. Rather they were out of line as prospective member states applying for entry in the EU.

There are rules to the game, and one of them is if you are new and trying to fit in, you don't wave your arms around and poke the older players in the ribs.




Well in truth it isn't, and the statement I made is testiment rather to my lack of descriptive ability rather than my actual meaning. What I meant is that the EU has a controlling core, a sort of political gravity point about which all other states, like political satelites revolve. In name this heart of the EU is Brussels, but in truth it is the Franco German region/ alliance which seems to have been cemented by Mitterand and Kohl, and which is still very firmly in place (mostly thanks to the ineptitude of Margret Thatcher I suspect)

So, by opposing the French and/ or the Germans, those member nations seeking entry were in reality opposing the heart of the EU. Its not fair, and its probably not right either. But it is politics.

And as the Chinese say, 'This too shall pass' so it will not always be this way. As the EU grows, France will lose its share of the gravity point, (I suspect though that Germany will not) and become just another member state.




Not quite. They did not disagree with Chirac personally, and Chirac himself is only the focus of the French establishment in this regard. The mouth piece of the Franco German alliance if you will.




In EU politics thats what makes it a hit. Note that I did not say it was a victory.

The fact that no other nation supports Chirac in this matter only means they have no wish to see the French position strengthened. Even the Germans will only back the French if it is in their own national interests to do so.

Chirac gained the upper hand because he can now frown up the lack of loyalty displayed by the Eastern European nations, especially Poland. After all, how can they claim to wish to be a part of Europe if they turn their backs on Europe at the first chance they get?

Also, you must remember that those nations in the East are only newly democratic, and have leaders who must learn how to balance the razor sharp edge between their own populations perceptions and the scrutiny of the Western EU nations.

Chirac's comments can be seen in the light of an attack at the leadership of those nations who sided with America, rather than the actual nations themselves. It is a fact of life in Europe that politicians who are EU sceptics have a snowballs chance in hell of surviving in the EU political climate.

I think this statement goes to the heart of the debate. In my view joining the EU (or any other major foreign policy decision is not a game. Frankly, I find that idea a bit frightening.

The eastern European nation do not have an obligation to "fit in" they have a obligation to do what is best for their country, Europe, and the world at large. If that means, in their estimation, siding with the US it is wrong to criticize them for not fitting in. France and Germany should not be allowed to dominate other members of the EU. To threaten prospective members into agreement. That is horrible foreign policy on their part and the eastern European nation should take it into consideration when joining the EU "alliance"/ street gang.

Turnea

Of course its not a 'game'. I used that word as a metaphor, I could just have easily said 'war', without it being a war...

And yes you are right, in all fairness, member nations should be allowed to voice and act upon their own interests.

However, as every politician should know, one's own countries interests will almost always conflict with other country's interests, and if that other country is bigger or more powerfull than one's own, then one should tread lightly or face the consequences.

With the EU, what is of prime important is the EU's interests, and these are currently dictated by Germany and France.

Poland and the other Eastern European nations in question have every right to do as they wish with regards to their foreign policy, but they cannot expect to oppose France and go unopposed.




Why is it any different than America's attempts to bully weaker nations into joing their coalition of the 'willing' ? Large strong nations get what they want by using their strength. They do not get any thing by being nice!

And the EU is not a 'streetgang'. It is the fulcrum of political endeavour on this planet today. If you don't like it, then thats fine, get in line... but I doubt if you will find any where on the planet where things are 'better'.

Chirac is all for democracy but when it comes to another member supporting the US in a war he doesn't like, it's "Get in line of get out". So much for Mr. Democracy.

And you think we were demanding when we said "you re with us or against us".

My distinguished colleague Goamerica is correct. George Bush's decidedly antidemocratic "your either with us, or with the terrorists" statement was ample precedent for Mr. Chirac's own black-and-white statement.

Moif, your statement

is very eloquent, and very true. I am confident that the Eastern European nations will soon realize that what the US can offer them on the world stage is quite paltry compared with joining the EU and enjoying that vibrant coalition of cultures and politics. And this is not meant to demean America's position - it makes sense that those nations will have more advantage (culturally, politically, economically) becoming a part of a progressive European community than by allying themselves with the US, an ocean away.

(Rebuilding the Atlantic Alliance, Ronald D Asmus)

We are more then an ocean away, we are worlds apart with reqard to transatlantic cooperation.

A wise man once said...

Why the chance in perception?


There is a difference between voicing opposition and attempting to define the European union in terms of French policy by denying others membership. I notice Chirac didn't dare to take on the UK, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc. His statements were less philosophical opposition and more political maneuvering. He was simply trying to preserve his power in the EU.


So then the ends justify the means, right?
Not to mention we aren't here to discuss US policy, there's a forum for just that topic: "Coalition of the Willing"


I described the EU as a "street gang" to make this point. If it is to let its policy be dictated by one or two nation which make up a fraction of the whole of Europe, then that is precisely what it is to become, not a "union" in any positive sense at all. Hardly a coalition just another group of nations feuding amongst themselves for power. Europe can do better.

Turnea

Wise eh? Its 2am here so please forgive me if I stumble over my wording.




Well, the first regards the EU and the second quote is my own personal opinion, and does not reflect anything other than that.
How ever I do believe that the majority of Europeans also harbour a grudge, be it little or large, against France which stems back to their failures in the twentieth century, and which deeply undermine their present 'world power' posturing.




Actually the various nations of Europe, and especially their political leaders often break out in a rash over each other, but France is the worst of the lot.

But you are right, in theory.
In practice, France will do what it deems it must to use the authority of the EU for its own gains.

In truth though I do not believe Chirac's threat was anything but (I think the word is) gamesmanship (?) Chirac's real objective, (IMHO) was to cement France's position at the heart of Europe.
Personally I believe this will succeed right up until the point the British decide to get their act together, at which point I think the Franco German alliance will splinter.

There is however another point of interest in all this. In the recent negotiations in Copenhagen, where the Eastern nations in question were vying for the best bargains possible as part of their entrence into the EU, Chirac's entire agenda was based on one simple concept; To protect the French farmers.

However, Poland has an awful lot of farmers, and they desired garantee's to protect their farmers. Garantee's of the same EU subsides that (for example) the French are receiving, or that the entire subsidy system should be removed to level the playing field for all EU nations.
Which of course the French opposed.
At Copenhagen, France used its political muscle to get what it wanted, and the Poles had to grin and bear it. I have a feeling that what Chirac is doing is keeping the youngsters with their heads in the sand, in order to teach them a lesson.

One thing is for sure. In Europe today, the main political agenda is to allow the EU to grow and I do not believe for a moment that the Eurocrats at Brussels, nor the other EU nations would for even a second, allow France to block membership of the Eastern European nations.

I could be wrong though... France blocked Britain's bid for membership of the old EEC... twice.




Quite, quite...

I'm not seeking to disrupt the flow of the debate though. I'm just drawing a parralel to illustrate my point.
In international politics, might is indeed right, and if you've got it, then you flaunt it.
Every large nation does this, not just France.





I'm afraid that, at this point, thats exactly what the EU is, and it will continue to be so for as long as the member states enjoy the reality, or perhaps the illusion, of sovereignty.

Moif, I can't believe that France is acting only to save its own interests while playing the European game. So far, recent history shows the we've been a part of the band since the very beginning ; going against the European construction at this point doesn't make sense.

However, it's only normal that we are trying to find a way to fit in Europe, or use it to serve our own national means. I would be surprised if the Danish politicians themselves were considering the EU in a different perspective!

In the end, I agree that the main obstacle to the reality of the EU is the sovereignty of the member states. At this point, we look more like the United Nations of Europe than the United States! But the EU is not about giving up our sovereignty, is it?



Finally, could you be a little more explanatory about your stance?

Horyok



I think all the EU nations do this as a matter of course. This is the great paradox that is Europe today. Every one wants the union, but no one is willing to pay for it.




You are right. There is nothing different about what France is doing. Denmark and all the other nations act in exactly the same way.

Our agriculture sector is constantly whining and complaining about the EU subsidy system, but no one is willing to take the step to demand it goes.




Actually I think it is... or rather it will become so as time passes. The draft constitution which is now set for ratification will be one more step to a federal Europe, and should it be passed, I have no doubt that it will become the supreme law in every nation that adopts it.

I will be voting against it b.t.w, even though I am pro EU, I do not like the amount of power which the constitution puts into the hands of the large central EU states like France and Germany. Denmark would be rendered powerless, and the constitution makes it extremely difficult for a nation to withdraw from the EU once it has been ratified.

So even on the grasss roots level, we Danes (as most others I bet) are still thinking nationally rather than continentally




With pleasure.
I have friends from all across Europe, and I have lived all my life in Britain and Denmark and from this foundation, my perception of the common attitude towards France, in Europe, is one of sceptical distrust. Although France is widely perceived to be one of the biggest influences on European culture, and a world class power, its failings in the twentieth century, especially in the face of nazi Germany, have lead people to look upon the modern French attitude of opposing NATO, Britain and America as some what ridiculous.

In Britain there has always been a common perception of the French as the opponent, so one might be inclined to say that British Francophobia was biased.

But there is a similiar perception in Denmark, which has no tradition of competition with France.
In Denmark there is a general attitude of gratitude towards the British, and especially the United States, since it is widely understood that without US intervention, Denmark would have been swallowed up by either the nazi's or the Soviets.
It is also understood that our European allies, with the exception of Britain, failed us. Germany invaded us, and France, who should have been strong enough to oppose the Germans considering the size and wealth of the two nations compared, should have fought far harder than she did.

I don't believe any one here, or in Britain for the most part, blames the French for being defeated, because no European nation could have beaten Germany in 1939, but neither we do believe in France's strength any more, and when Jacques Chirac opposes the United States, without whom his nation would today be a German province, in a matter of war, he appears to us, and many other Europeans I have spoken to (Greek, German, Dutch...) as looking like a fool.

Even those that agree with France's opposition to the war in Iraq will often agree that there is a moral contradiction in the French position that hints at ingratitude and dellusion.

After all, what gives the French leader the right to lecture the Americans about what must be done to defend us all?

The same can also be said of the Germans, and for me personally it turned my stomach to see Joschker Fischer (sp?) foreign minister of Germany and a candidate for the EU presidency lecturing Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq, even though I do not like, or agree with Rumsfeld.

Fischer was himself photographed kicking and beating a policeman during a protest riot in the early eighties. It angers me to see the EU being run by such hypocrites, rife with corruption and scorn for the rest of us.

Chirac I have no problem with. I even admire his tenacity, but men like Prodi, Fischer and Berlusconi deserve to be sitting in prison, not running the EU!

okay rant over...

Good point, Moif.

When I look at our politicians, I sometimes want to be in their place and see if I could do better.

Through my job, I'm in touch with politicians and representatives of all sides. The ones who work with town councils or local counties are realistic, sensible and pragmatic. Some of them are nice, others are jerks (but that's another story ).

However, politicians working in ministers are completely off the plug for the most part. They've become tools of their own parties and their goal is more about machiavelic games than actually serving the citizens.

I wouldn't be surprised if this could be extended to the whole Europe, partially or totally. They say that "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", don't they? Corruption of the system and mistrust will always be I'm afraid. I guess it's part of the human nature and we have to learn and accept it, even if we hate it!

About the constitution now, I have very mixed feelings. I would be eager to live in an Europe without boundaries and united economically, politically and socially. I'm afraid it means that my country has to loose some of which made it unique.

Horyok

I suspect you are correct, and that it is much the same all over Europe.
What I wonder is, if this is a typical European attitude, or if the Eastern Europeans and Americans are any different... judging by the news from those parts of the world, they have no right to throw stones...

So in other words, Chirac better zip him mouth and stop making it seem that France is the dominator of the EU before he creates a wave of hate that will never quit internally in the EU community


Horyok:


Exactly what makes the EU constitution a threat to the soverignty of the individual states in the EU. The EU constitution doesn't seem to serve the needs of the states.

I think this is an unfounded fear. Even today in the US, the states have their unique cultures. I have travelled all over these United States; there are unique characteristics to each state. If these have lessened, it is not due to federal government and a constitution. It is due to the commercialization of culture and consumerism.

There is already a generation of Europeans who are moving beyond the identities of their home nations, who think of themselves as "Europeans" and not "Dutch" or "French." The lessening of uniqueness in European nations is also due to commercialism, not government. It is the Walmarts, McDonalds, etc. A town in Germany may look like a town in Holland soon, because the same restaurant chains and department stores will line the streets. But that will happen whether or not there is a shared constitution and political vision. Indeed, if it is Europeans' will to stem that particular tide, they have a better chance as a united political power then as separate countries, falling to the power of unchecked commercialism like dominoes.

It seems the concerns voiced in this thread weren't as misguided as some might think.


EU constitution summit 'may fail'
Eastern Europe and other small European states are afraid of being bullied, for good reason it seems...

The constitution is problematic for many reasons, not merely voting rights.

The problem is that everyone wants different things from the EU and the constitution tries to reflect this. France would like the EU to move toward a federalised superstate - similar to the US in style. The Germans also favour this idea and there are strong indications that France and Germany may well unite anyway at some point. The UK likes the trade agreements but not much else. Poland has only recently won independence from Russia and most Poles are opposed being ordered around by the EU. Opinion amongst other Eastern European countries is divided....but the constitution has to please everyone and has now become very long, wordy and full of so much compromise that it pleases almost nobody!

To be honest I can understand why France and Germany are peeved with the rest. They were two of the original six EU countries (Belgium, West Germany, France, Luxembourg, Italy and the Netherlands) that formed the EEC (European Economic Community that became the EU) in 1957. Whatever the original plans for the future of the EEC were, by allowing Britain, Spain, Poland et al to join the original vision has become heavily compromised. Its a bit like forming a club that is then taken over by all the 'newbies'!

The reality is that, although there might be some 'Old Europe' resentment of American military dominance and ability to act unilaterally, no-one in the EU is going to do anything seriously anti-american. Britain manages to be in the EU and an ally of the US without too much difficulty, so there is no reason why Poland and others can not. The EU is going to be the economic superpower in the region - so it makes sense for everyone to join it.

The EU constitution has many flaws and takes away soverignty from individual member states. It also, according to the Vatican, it recognizes neither the continent's Christian heritage nor the proper role of churches.

Also, Britain is thinking about Vetoing it, which could cause setbacks

Actually vetoing the consitution is a bit more than a setback - it would mean that it could not be adopted by the EU at all - and it isn't just Britain who might veto it. Personally I would scrap the current version - as being overlong and not really saying anything.

Its true about the Christian heritage being ignored - however France has a strong tradition of secularism in government, and this is an organisation which hopes to one day see Islamic Turkey as a member and has a sizeable number of Muslims in its population.

Whatever mention of Christianity eventually ends up in the constitution is also guaranteed to be too much for some countries and not enough for others. Thats just how we do things in Europe!