Editor's note: To be or not to be
To be a member of the European Union remains an historic opportunity for us. We keep aspiring. There is still a great distance to cover between Poland and her richer, Western neighbors, whose elite club she was so recently allowed to join. It is easier to achieve goals when you have aspirations. They provide you with the necessary strength and motivation. They tell you which direction to head and what for. We Poles aspire to push the progress of human development, to liberalize the European economy, and to be perceived by the richer EU countries as partners - and not the notorious 'Polish plumbers' endangering their comfortable status quo.
For the societies of the erstwhile EU15, it is a far more difficult riddle to solve.
In their case, the simple question asked by countries like Poland - "How much can we gain?" - does not emerge. The former EU15 are more likely to ask: "How much will we lose?"
The results of the French and Dutch constitutional referendums confirm their answer. Even more so, they are a message to the architects of EU enlargement that they now have to pay for the manner in which enlargement was conducted. The inhabitants of the EU15 felt as if the technocrats from Brussels had decided for them. Now, when somebody finally asked their opinion, they openly expressed their discontent with EU expansion.
The two questions posed by the new and old EU members constitute the impetus behind the crisis within the community. They do not only reveal the gravity, but also the name of the ailment afflicting Europe. It is a well-known sickness that has caused thousands to shed blood and squander historical opportunities.
Its name is national egotism. Its symptoms include the short-sightedness of politicians, indifference towards the other members of the community and thinking of the EU in terms of a financial showdown.
Prescription politics will not cure this disease. The primitive campaigns we recently observed in France and the Netherlands won't help society recover either. What we really need are experienced, outstanding political practitioners. Where are they? That is the question.
Eliza Durka
Editor-in-chief
For the societies of the erstwhile EU15, it is a far more difficult riddle to solve.
In their case, the simple question asked by countries like Poland - "How much can we gain?" - does not emerge. The former EU15 are more likely to ask: "How much will we lose?"
The results of the French and Dutch constitutional referendums confirm their answer. Even more so, they are a message to the architects of EU enlargement that they now have to pay for the manner in which enlargement was conducted. The inhabitants of the EU15 felt as if the technocrats from Brussels had decided for them. Now, when somebody finally asked their opinion, they openly expressed their discontent with EU expansion.
The two questions posed by the new and old EU members constitute the impetus behind the crisis within the community. They do not only reveal the gravity, but also the name of the ailment afflicting Europe. It is a well-known sickness that has caused thousands to shed blood and squander historical opportunities.
Its name is national egotism. Its symptoms include the short-sightedness of politicians, indifference towards the other members of the community and thinking of the EU in terms of a financial showdown.
Prescription politics will not cure this disease. The primitive campaigns we recently observed in France and the Netherlands won't help society recover either. What we really need are experienced, outstanding political practitioners. Where are they? That is the question.
Eliza Durka
Editor-in-chief
