Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
I'm not old enough to remember the details, but my impression from the quote is that he overestimates the willingness and ability of EU-12 to move along further integration without Denmark.

I also have the distinct impression that this wasn't necessary, because the Danish politicians - almost all of them, even the ones opposed to the treaty - agreed that Denmark should accede with certain opt-outs.

So in summary, I think he's over dramatising the situation. But of course, that's with the benefit of hindsight - I'm sure it wasn't particularly comfortable to be him at the time.

As an aside, I think it's depressing that a Reaganite cold warrior is the most outspoken pro-EU voice among Europe's (more or less) active politicians.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 03:33:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
JakeS:
I'm not old enough to remember the details, but my impression from the quote is that he overestimates the willingness and ability of EU-12 to move along further integration without Denmark.
You are correct for the following reason: the Treaty of Maastricht created the European Union by adding to the European Economic Community (first pillar, with separate legal personality) the Second and Thurd pillars (Common Foreign and Security Policy, and Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Justice) as well as the Schengen agreement (which had been operating outside EEC structures since the mid-80's among France, Germany and the BeNeLux, and the Euro. There was no such thing as "enhanced cooperation" outside of the single market (first pillar, where it was not needed since decisions could already be taken by qualified majority, if I am not mistaken).
As an aside, I think it's depressing that a Reaganite cold warrior is the most outspoken pro-EU voice among Europe's (more or less) active politicians.
It's just that he belongs to the generation of European leaders who were active before 1995. Anyone from that generation would tell you the same. He's been retired ffrom politics since 2000, hasn't he?

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 05:25:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Since 1999, I think. But only retired in the sense and to the extent that - say - Al Gore retired after 2000. He stepped down after he lost the third election in a row, and he didn't want to hang around as former bigshot because (he says) he thought it would cause all kinds of problems for his party.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 at 09:05:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series