It is true that with the name EU, the EU exists only from after the Cold War. However, its precursors, and the goals it embodies, existed for much longer, and the reforms that led to the re-branding of the European projects called EU were
but new members of EU were against it.
Against deeper integration were chiefly Britain ("Old Europe") and Poland (one of the "New Europeans"). The rest of the new members had, on one hand, a more vague position, on the other hand, don't have that much weight.
I know that some of "Old European" leaders like Prodi and Chirac wanted to create inside EU the core group of countries with separate European identity and interests
Separate EUropean identity and interests already exist, the 'core group' would be about deeper integration (a quantitative, not qualitative difference). Prodi merely didn't loudly oppose such an idea, it was more Chirac who threatened with it, but Schröder and Fischer didn't go along. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
...started in the eighties. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Before WWI Europe struggled with the adoption of liberal democracy [bourgeois democracy] and coming out of the ancien regime. Between the world wars liberal democracy was weak because it was bourgeois and not inclusive enough. Fascism and Socialism had the upper hand, and lbearlism allied itself with socialism to defeat fascism. After WWII, socialism and liberalism were the poles, and Europe developed its own brand of social democracy [with roots dating before WWI].
The EU has its origins and motivation within Western Europe itself: France and Germany wanted to make it impossible to have WWII between them. The transtlantic relationship is built around NATO and the "red scare" was not a factor in creating the EU [we've debated this point here on ET before, without general agreement].
After the fall of the Iron Curtain and 40 years of European Construction, the EU was ready to become its own global pole. The US opposes that and want to see the EU subordinate to the US through NATO.
The 'new europe' countries are atlanticists, more pro-NATO than pro-EU. From the point of view of making the EU independent of the US, they function as US Trojan horses. The EU as a whole is weaker because of this, and separating the 'core' could strengthen it again. 'New Europe' in this atlanticist, US-subordinate role includes the UK and any other peripheral [not France or Germany] Western European countries which happen to have christian-democrat governments [Barroso, Aznar, Berlusconi, Fogh-Rasmussen, Bondevik, Balkenende...] tens of millions of people stand to see their lives ruined because the bureaucrats at the ECB don't understand introductory economics -- Dean Baker
" [Certain political actors in] The US oppose[s] that and want to see the EU subordinate to the US through NATO."
true.
In my house we want to see the Union Européenne thrive as an example of a coöperative collection of free and genuinely self-governing nations which share and promote and defend real democratic ideals--everywhere. "In such an environment it is not surprising that the ills of technology should seem curable only through the application of more technology..." John W Aldridge
Trojan horses, peripheral states - isn't it like Russia treats them? In Russian media Eastern European countries considered as somewhat insignificant, as a geographic barrier on cooperation with Western Europe, therefore attempts to avoid them as a transport transit link if possible.
If Chirac and Prodi succeed in creating separate core group isn't it a sign of weakness of Old European identity? Old Europe for Poles is less attractive than American security umbrella.
