Poland returns to WWII

Poland seems willing to say anything to increase its power in the EU at Germany's expense. Now it's this: "Poland is challenging population-based voting rights in the EU by saying it would have more people if Germany hadn't slaughtered Poles." The BBC has a good summary of the issues facing the European Summit including the Poles' war of words. Der Spiegel has good coverage of the row including the German reaction here and here. Finally, the Center for European Reform has some good advice on what you do with a problem like Poland.

Germany, the Square Root of Poland's Problem

A few months ago, I wrote about Poland's proposal to base voting in the Council of Ministers on the square root of a member state's population. As European leaders meet in Brussels this week for a European Council Summit, Poland's proposal is proving to be the biggest stumbling block in reaching agreement on a mini-treaty to reform the EU's institutions. Below I have compiled some data showing the equivalent votes member states would have in the Council under three different proposals — the current system from the Nice Treaty, under the now dead European Constitution, and under the Polish proposal. You can see from the graph that Poland's proposal is solely aimed at Germany. In fact, both Germany and Poland receive the fewest votes under the Polish proposal.

EUobserver.com

The Berlin Declaration, made last Sunday on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, was issued in German and translated into the other 22 official languages of the EU. Such translations are routine in the EU. Normally, the translators strive to make documents linguistically equivalent in all languages. However, it appears the Berlin Declaration may have been subjected to a "political translation" when translated from German:

The declaration, adopted during the celebrations for the 50th anniversary of the Rome Treaties in Berlin on Sunday (25 March), says in German that "We, the citizens in the European Union, are united zu unserem Glück " - which means "united in our fortune/happiness."

However, in the other versions of the text the word Glück has been given a less solemn treatment.

"We, the citizens of the European Union, have united for the better," the more down-to-earth English version says.

The word has also disappeared from the Danish version where Glück has been replaced with ''vor fælles bedste" meaning "for the best" and further down the declaration the word has been lost in translation.

With growing skepticism of the Union, would it be very surprising if European leaders had purposefully chosen to "sanitize" the text for more euroskeptic audiences outside of Germany? No. Since the British and the Danish are the most anti-EU populations in the Union, the English and Danish versions of the declaration would have fallen on deaf ears if they included a statement that Europe was united in its happiness.

With growing skepticism of the Union, is it troubling that EU leaders may have purposefully chosen to "sanitize" the text for more euroskeptic audiences outside of Germany? Yes. The Berlin declaration was supposed to be a simple statement about what binds Europe together, not what sets them apart. The possibility that the German presidency could not draft a statement that cold be made universally in all member states and in all languages suggests that Europe is more divided than popularly thought. If true, there is very little hope for finding the political will to reform the Union institutions before 2009 as the Berlin Declaration implores.