The basic question” “

European policy and the Church ask themselves why the European Constitutional Treaty is not a response to the needs of contemporary Europe and has become a problem. We can surmise that the rejection in France and in Holland expresses a disagreement about the content of the Constitution and lack of confidence in the latest enlargement of the European Union to the majority of the Slav peoples. According to the head of the government of the Republic of Slovenia, Janez Janša, no one has the right to preclude the European prospect to the nations of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, which have suffered for many years due to Communism and are an integral part of the European continent. The EU Constitutional Treaty draws on the cultural, religious and humanistic heritage of Europe, in which the values of the dignity of the person, human rights, freedom, solidarity, democracy and the rule of law have been developed from natural law. The Treaty calls on the Union to pledge itself to cultivating an open, transparent and constant dialogue with the Churches and the religious movements, while at the same time recognizing their identity and their contribution to the common good. The Catholic Church in Slovenia, in tune with the Church in Europe, in spite of the unfulfilled dream for the Constitutional Treaty to make an explicit reference to the Christian roots of the continent, has positively evaluated it and supported it. Slovenia was also one the first States to ratify it. The “No” of the French and the Dutch expresses fears about the ten new members that entered the EU on 1st May 2004. But it also signifies a block on further EU enlargement to the Eastern and South-Eastern region (Balkans). Bulgaria and Romania have already begun the processes for EU accession, while Croatia has not even begun the negotiations. The other countries of the Balkans, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia, are forgotten. These nations are an open wound and a hotbed of possible tensions, so the indifference of Europe towards this part of the continent represents a deliberate closing of its eyes to the reality. The fact that the supporters of the “Yes” in both countries – France and Holland – were mainly citizens close to the Catholic Church is consoling. For this is a segment of the population that has a deep awareness of responsibility for the common good and the future of our continent. They are people convinced of the eternity of the values and of the Christian roots that have formed the existing face of Europe. Those who voted yes recognise in the Treaty a sum of values that they have in common, while those who voted no are those who have ulterior aims: those who consider the EU especially as an occasion to exploit the countries of Eastern Europe and ensure themselves of greater material well-being. The countries of Eastern Europe, in their eyes, offer a more convenient workforce and a market basis, but at the same time they would remain second-class nations: they would not have the right to decide for themselves. Those who voted no thus fear any growth of the solidarity that the European Constitutions requests and provides for the future, also taking into account its future enlargement. Voting no to the Constitutional Treaty meant giving precedence to selfish instincts and closing our eyes to the difficulties of our neighbours. In spite of the stagnant situation created by the decision of France and of Holland, the task of Christians and all people of good will does not change: the process of linking the European states must continue in the awareness of our common responsibility for the future. If Europe wants to exist, it must be guided by the principle of equality of rights and of duties for all the nations united in the EU. It is impossible to block its enlargement, but the basic question remains the contribution that Christians can make to the definition of the European continent in future: will it still have a Christian identity?