The German press analyses the failure of the summit in Brussels. “ The Europe ordered from the top, in which opposing ideas were compressed into conspiratorial circles, is dead“, writes Berthold Kohler in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (23/6). “ A community that wants to be able to act has a need for a minimum of common interests and values, of solidarity and loyalty. Without the consciousness of a common identity and without a sense of belonging, it disintegrates. But why should the British now share their considerable prosperity with the peasants of Anatolia if they already do not accept the subsidies to French farmers? If the EU wishes to overcome its crisis, it must finally decide what it wants. […] To continue to cling to the dogma of enlargement would lead to certain decline. […] The EU will be what its citizens wish it to be or it will die with a whimper and say goodbye to history“. The Franfkurter Rundschau (22/6) comments on the proposal of the Social-Democratic group in the European Parliament to consult citizens on fundamental questions, through forums of citizens. “ The idea… presents advantages, but also conceals risks. […] It is difficult to imagine that 25 decisions by 25 forums of citizens on the future of Europe could lead to a common denominator… This would mark the final crisis of the Union“. A comment in the weekly Der Spiegel (20/6) says: “ What is really worrying is the political and media effect of the failed summit: the already disastrous image of the EU has been gravely compromised. The summer summit in Brussels was supposed to lead to a positive shift: probably it was on the contrary an historic failure“. The French daily La Croix (20/6) also analyses the failure of the negotiations on the European budget. “ Europeans seeking a new ‘inspiration'” is the headline on the paper’s front page over a story emphasizing that “ After the stalemate of the European Council in Brussels, the Twenty-Five must overcome their disagreements, especially France and the United Kingdom, which are still divided on the budget. The hope could come from the ten new accession countries, whose dynamism and good will left their mark on the summit“. The editorial by the paper’s director Bruno Frappat, with the title “ Europe, recover yourself!“, points out that “ the European leaders suddenly appeared confused, furious and impotent, and mutually attributed the blame for the disaster to each other. The failure of the Brussels summit, whose only practical result was to ‘freeze’ every possible decision, will leave a bitter trace in the history of the continent“. In this situation of stalemate according to Frappat “ Europe is a history in which Christianity, despite those who repudiate the evidence, has played a principal role in the course of the centuries and continues to have an essential part to play, in a situation of disorientation of our culture, of our moral persuasions, of our democracy, and of our concept of liberty“. Frappat says he is especially worried by the fact that “ when Europe begins to appear as an ‘old people’s idea’ to an important part of youth, then it’s time to rejuvenate our ideas. History is not enough; besides it is never remembered! … It is not geography, nor history that has received a setback in recent days. It is the future that has been compromised, under the effect of a depressing present!“. “Janus-headed Europe”: that’s the title of the editorial signed by M.A.Bastenier in the Spanish daily El Paìs of 22/6, commenting on the recent summit of the European Union in Brussels. According to Bastenier, the summit revealed “two opposing visions of Europe”, so that “the debate, whatever be its subterfuges and euphemisms, must focus on which of the two the Europeans prefer“. The two visions are the Europe of Chirac and that of Tony Blair, which the political analyst examines in his article, concluding: “That the two schools of thought expose their face in the full light of day is not so negative. (…) Yet what a pity that the political Europe has not had better champions!” The British daily The Times (21/6) returns to the vexed question of religious readings and hymns in civil marriage ceremonies, called for by some political exponents. “ The ban on religious citations in civil ceremonies is about to be re-proposed” writes Richard Ford in his article with the title “ The angels can sing at your civil wedding, but God cannot even put in a word“. The MP Dennis Roberts, cited in the report, had in fact pointed out that a law of 1995 banned “ any reference to God or deities, prayer or liturgy, church or temple” in civil marriage ceremonies. The paper also publishes a list of texts and songs that are “admitted” (Aretha Franklin, Robbie Williams, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Shakespeare, Donne) and those “prohibited” (Bible, Koran, Torah). The comment: “ a ‘relaxation’ of the provisions that prohibit religious references in civil marriages could be contemplated for Victorian poets or for pop singers, but the texts of St. Paul are destined to remain banned“.———————————————————————————————————– Sir Europa (English) N.ro assoluto : 1399 N.ro relativo : 48 Data pubblicazione : 24/06/05
