Following the Irish rejection of the EU constitution, Poland is demurring. President Lech Kaczynski’s approval is required as a last step under Polish law, and he has determined it would be “pointless” to sign on given the Irish rejection.
By the way, you have to love the dismayed New York Times coverage — at least if you have gotten to the point of being amused rather than infuriated by the Gray Lady’s relentless spinning. It’s story does not refer to a new EU constitution that would essentially end the sovereignty of its constituents. This monstrosity is instead repeatedly called the “Lisbon Treaty” and readers are told its purpose is merely “to modernize the institutions of the 27-nation bloc.” How could anyone possibly be against a “treaty,” which connotes agreement and harmony (as opposed to a “constitution” — which, especially when applied to 27 different countries, suggests a radical new understanding)? And how could anyone oppose something so rational, so enlightened as “modernizing” our “institutions”?
The story adds: “French officials said Monday that they would use the presidency to try to win over discontented voters in Europe by getting ‘back to basics’ on matters such as cushioning the impact of soaring food and fuel bills and protecting voters from the impact of globalization.”
Could it be that for ordinary Europeans in France — who are a lot more skeptical about this grand enterprise than elite Europeans in the French government — getting “back to basics” and being protected from “the impact of globalization” might mean remaining, you know, French?