Jak Europejczycy reagują na nowo wybranych przywódców?

2 ważne akapity z artykułu:

Pytanie:

"It is difficult to argue that either Van Rompuy or Ashton were truly the most-qualified or best-prepared candidates for their respective jobs. By choosing such low-profile figures, Europe is essentially defining their responsibilities and expectations down. Van Rompuy had been mentioned before as a compromise option, but Ashton had not -- and the pick reportedly took her by surprise. After eight years of haggling and months of heated expectation, why would Europe pick such demonstrably low-profile figures?"

Odpowiedź:

"Another answer -- one with more importance to the future of the European Union -- lies in the strongest European states: Britain, France, and Germany. Only Britain even sought to put its politicians into EU high office; France and Germany preferred to negotiate for powerful but lower-profile positions in the European Central Bank and European Commission. This eased the selection process and avoided the alienation of small states."

I o to chodzi. Każdy wie, że Niemcy, Francja, Wielka Brytania i może Włochy (w takiej kolejności) to główni gracze w UE. Aby nie dawać poczucia alienacji mniejszym i mniej ważnym państwom w strukrtrze UE, na nowe stanowiska wybiera się osoby mniej znane. Tylko czy niezależne od wpływów właśnie tych czołowych państw na politykę europejską?

Pointę artykułu:

"In the end, perhaps that's what Europe really wanted."

bym zmienił na:

"In the end, perhaps that's what Europe really has to think - that's all right that way."