History and public opinion: the historical profession and the French-Dutch rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty. De Arena. Debat over Europa

‘History and public opinion: the historical profession and the French-Dutch rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty’ In May-June 2005, the French and then the Dutch rejected the EU Constitutional Treaty. Were those events significant for the Dutch historical profession? Not very much: student dem...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: M. Wintle
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Open Journals 2007-01-01
Series:BMGN: Low Countries Historical Review
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ojstest.minions.amsterdam/article/view/4963
id doaj-e136db0a2ba040deb1cdafa7eb228b87
record_format Article
spelling doaj-e136db0a2ba040deb1cdafa7eb228b872021-10-02T15:17:00ZengOpen JournalsBMGN: Low Countries Historical Review0165-05052211-28982007-01-011221History and public opinion: the historical profession and the French-Dutch rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty. De Arena. Debat over EuropaM. Wintle ‘History and public opinion: the historical profession and the French-Dutch rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty’ In May-June 2005, the French and then the Dutch rejected the EU Constitutional Treaty. Were those events significant for the Dutch historical profession? Not very much: student demand for courses on Europe is booming and trade books on European history continue to sell well. However, the referenda do remind us of some opportunities for historians. This article argues that they should, more than ever, continue to lay bare the ‘historical’ nonsense that many politicians spout. In due course, historians will provide clear evidence about the reasons for the negative votes. They can also assist clarity of thinking by pointing out the anomaly of comparing the modern EU with nation states formed in the nineteenth century, and by insisting that there are many Europes, not just one. Historians should be sparing with declarations of what European identity is: Europe is, and always has been, in the eye of the beholder.   This article is part of the forum 'Debat over Europa'. https://ojstest.minions.amsterdam/article/view/4963ConstitutionsEuropean integration
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author M. Wintle
spellingShingle M. Wintle
History and public opinion: the historical profession and the French-Dutch rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty. De Arena. Debat over Europa
BMGN: Low Countries Historical Review
Constitutions
European integration
author_facet M. Wintle
author_sort M. Wintle
title History and public opinion: the historical profession and the French-Dutch rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty. De Arena. Debat over Europa
title_short History and public opinion: the historical profession and the French-Dutch rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty. De Arena. Debat over Europa
title_full History and public opinion: the historical profession and the French-Dutch rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty. De Arena. Debat over Europa
title_fullStr History and public opinion: the historical profession and the French-Dutch rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty. De Arena. Debat over Europa
title_full_unstemmed History and public opinion: the historical profession and the French-Dutch rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty. De Arena. Debat over Europa
title_sort history and public opinion: the historical profession and the french-dutch rejection of the eu constitutional treaty. de arena. debat over europa
publisher Open Journals
series BMGN: Low Countries Historical Review
issn 0165-0505
2211-2898
publishDate 2007-01-01
description ‘History and public opinion: the historical profession and the French-Dutch rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty’ In May-June 2005, the French and then the Dutch rejected the EU Constitutional Treaty. Were those events significant for the Dutch historical profession? Not very much: student demand for courses on Europe is booming and trade books on European history continue to sell well. However, the referenda do remind us of some opportunities for historians. This article argues that they should, more than ever, continue to lay bare the ‘historical’ nonsense that many politicians spout. In due course, historians will provide clear evidence about the reasons for the negative votes. They can also assist clarity of thinking by pointing out the anomaly of comparing the modern EU with nation states formed in the nineteenth century, and by insisting that there are many Europes, not just one. Historians should be sparing with declarations of what European identity is: Europe is, and always has been, in the eye of the beholder.   This article is part of the forum 'Debat over Europa'.
topic Constitutions
European integration
url https://ojstest.minions.amsterdam/article/view/4963
work_keys_str_mv AT mwintle historyandpublicopinionthehistoricalprofessionandthefrenchdutchrejectionoftheeuconstitutionaltreatydearenadebatovereuropa
_version_ 1716854305009434624