The recent debate about a new charter for the European Union, which would serve as its de-facto “constitution” reveals not only how relative tenuous some of the group’s ties remain but also how many of the present day political struggles are rooted in history.

Paralleling some of the debates during the American Constitutional Convention, Poland had opposed the new agreement, mostly because it would allocate votes based on population which would give other nations greater representation. According to The New York Times, Poland’s objection was based on more than simply an ideal of fair play and equal representation.

Warsaw shocked its European Union colleagues by invoking Nazi Germany at the meeting and arguing that it deserved political compensation for its losses in World War II.

Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski of Poland argued, “If Poland had not had to live through the years of 1939-45, Poland would today be looking at the demographics of a country of 66 million.” The Polish delegation even brought a team of 10 mathematicians to Brussels to ensure that it was not duped into agreeing to an unfavorable voting system.

Disputes like this remind me about the extent to which the memory of the Second World War looms in the present day political disputes in Europe. Despite the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the “divided Europe” there are still significant divisions in Europe that are based upon the war and its aftermath. Poland’s independence was twice restored, first from Nazi Germany in 1944-1945, and second from the Soviet Union in the 1980s, but the demographic consequences of the war are unavoidable.

In a similar way, scholars and journalists have noted how many, especially Eastern European, Jewish communities were simply obliterated by the Holocaust, to the extent that they have not come back even more than 50 years years.

This is not to say that the Second World War explains all disputes about the composition of the European Union, but rather to suggest that the political unity Europe currently is attempting to consecrate is very much a historical anachronism. Its success is still very much in doubt.

The article in The New York Times described another nation’s objections to the agreement. Although not related to the Second World War, they are based on a certain conception of the nation’s role in Europe. Britain had problems with the agreement because some of its language seemed to impinge its sovereignty:

Key obstacles to a new treaty began to fall away late Friday. Britain, which had also threatened a veto, accepted formation of a new office for foreign policy, withdrawing reservations over the plan after negotiators scrapped the title “foreign minister,” which offended London’s sensitivities about preserving its national sovereignty.

Britain won further changes, including guarantees that its employment and social security laws would not be affected by a European Union charter of rights and that it would not be outvoted on justice and home affairs questions.

These objections seem to fit with the traditional conception that the British have had of themselves: that the nation was both a part of Europe and apart from Europe. Traditional English rights and liberties are sacrosanct, and the British ability to preserve them in the fact of a united Europe shows the clout that the nation retains despite the loss of its Empire.

The final point of interest in the article is the claim at the end that the French President made about his unique ability to bring Poland toward the compromise solution.

Mr. Sarkozy said psychological and historical factors made relations between France and Poland less tense than relations between Poland and Germany.

Despite the tentative agreement, there are still numerous hurdles to final ratification and implementation of the treaty. Referendums will need to take place in all or almost all of the member nations, and Poland managed to press for delayed implementation of the proportional representation based on national population until 2014 at the earliest. I think it will be most interesting to see over the coming years whether the populations of these European countries are as able to overcome their collective memories of the past and of their national identities as their leaders seem at least temporarily to been able to achieve at the conference.

The complete story from The New York Times: “Leaders in Deal on Europe’s Charter”