I’ve been writing a lot about the EU lately, and I apologize to both our readers if I’m boring you. But it’s been an eventful week.

Today, Nikos Konstandaras, the editor of a Greek newspaper, pens an opinion piece for the Washington Post website about last week’s Irish vote rejecting the Lisbon Treaty. If you haven’t been paying attention — and you may be excused for your apathy — the Lisbon Treaty was the compromise for structural EU reform following the defeat of the EU Constitution in 2005.

In his analysis, Konstandaras essentially blames Irish voters for holding up progress across Europe. He implies that they are stupid and provincial, blaming the defeat on “more domestic concerns regarding abortion, taxes and jobs that seem to have swayed their vote.” He goes on to urge European leaders to ignore the vote and press ahead.

Alas, Konstandaras’ argument, which has been embraced by other European commentators, is as arrogant as it is incorrect. And its tenor exemplifies why efforts to reform the EU continue to go down to defeat.

So, what did he get wrong?

Start with a simple, undeniable fact: Had the same referendum been held in virtually any other European nation, including France, Germany and the UK, it almost certainly would have been defeated. That’s exactly the reason that none of those nations’ governments put the treaty up for a vote. So the Irish vote, which Konstandaras wants to cast aside, was the one and only barometer for popular sentiment.

So, why are voters ready to stand in the way of reform? In short, it comes down to trust. Europeans, by and large, seem to instinctively understand that the EU is broken, and they are wary about handing any further power to Brussels bureaucrats.

Further, the EU is not a democratic institution, and Europeans increasingly seem to realize that. They elect MEPs, but they seem largely irrelevant in the European system. It’s the commissioners and bureaucrats who hold the power. And creating a European president seems a step in the wrong direction.

This shortcoming of democracy is exhibited, time after time, through arrogance. Indeed, the very arrogance that Konstandaras demonstrates by offhandedly dismissing the Irish vote.

I haven’t been in Europe long enough to have a strong opinion about the value of the EU, the Lisbon Treaty or any of the other fine points of European politics. But if I were advising those that think the EU needs to be a strong institution with a structure that allows greater flexibility and decisiveness, I would tell them in clear terms that they have to start listening. Their arrogance is undermining their case and making success harder and harder to achieve.

Last weekend, I took the Eurostar over the Paris and spent a couple of days. First of all, I had a lovely time taking in the major tourist spots. The Notre Dame was amazing. Louvre unbelievable. Musee d’Orsay sublime. And the food, of course, was wonderful.

Mostly, however, I did what I love to do in any new city: I eschewed transport and just wandered the streets.

On Saturday afternoon, I was wandering along the river on the Left Bank, when I passed this government building:

You’ll notice the French national flag flapping away on the left. But it was the flag on the right that struck me. It’s the EU flag, and I can’t say that I recall seeing one anywhere before outside of Brussels.

After seeing this, I started paying attention, and during a walk around a neighborhood full of government buildings that same evening, I noticed that nearly all French official buildings fly the EU flag.

First of all, I wonder if other EU nations do the same. I can say with certainty that the UK does not.

But more broadly, this practice struck me as a huge symbolic gesture of fealty to the EU. It suggests that the French have surrender the primacy of their own nation and given over their sovereignty to Brussels.

Now, I realize that I am probably overreacting. After all, it’s just a flag. But still… To me, it sends a powerful message.

What do you think?

It emerged this week that the U.N.’s Human Rights Council suggested that the United Kingdom should abolish its monarchy and put in place a new form of government based on a written Constitution.

The Human Rights Council, you might recall, is the U.N. body that welcomes members like Cuba and takes no action against countries like North Korea while routinely condemning Israel.

Alex Singleton, writing on the Telegraph’s politics blog, points out a few more inconvenient facts:

When people are being murdered in Zimbabwe and free speech is outlawed in North Korea, it’s good to see that the UN has its priorities right. The fact is that the constitutional arrangements of the UK actually work quite well. A written constitution, far from promoting human rights, would inevitably diminish them by promoting entitlements to resources, rather than freedoms from state interference. Besides, we already have a bill of rights (it was passed by Parliament in 1689).

So, what was the substance of the discussion?

According to this story, “Syria accused the UK of discriminating against Muslims and Iran complained about the UK’s record on tackling sexual discrimination.”

Seriously? Iran? On sex discrimination? The country that mandates how women dress and has literally codified discrimination?

If it weren’t so pathetic, it would be laughable.

More good commentary on this here and here.

According to a new YouGov poll, conducted for the Daily Telegraph, If European voters were deciding the U.S. Presidential election, Senator Obama would defeat Senator McCain by a margin of 52 percent to 15 percent.

The margin is wider in France, Italy and Germany, where Obama attracted 65, 70 and 67 percent respectively. In Russia, the race tightens, with Obama attracting 31 percent to McCain’s 24 percent. In the UK, Obama scrapes just short of a majority, with 49 percent against McCain’s 14 percent.

What’s striking about these figures isn’t the outcome. Spend five minutes on the street in any part of Europe, and you’ll learn that liberalism and the welfare state are part of the political DNA. In that sense, most voters in Europe can’t conceive of electing a truly conservative politician. And given their animus towards our current President, the notion that America might elect another Republicans leaves Europeans mystified and fearful.

No, what’s striking about these figures is what lies beneath.

YouGov also asked Europeans whether “You think the United States is overall a force for good or force for evil in today’s world?”

Overall, 43 percent said the U.S. is a force for evil, while only 27 percent said force for good. 30 percent weren’t sure. Indeed, of the five nations surveyed, only Italy, by a margin of 49 percent to 27 percent, thought the U.S. is a force for good. A plurality of voters in the UK, France, Germany and Russia all thought the U.S. is a force for evil, by margins of 2, 12, and an astonishing 40 percentage points respectively.

Do Europeans think that Barrack Obama will help make the U.S. a force for good? We don’t know. If YouGov asked, they haven’t revealed the results.

But consider how far we’ve come in just seven years. On September 13, 2001, NATO — which includes all of the countries surveyed except Russia — invoked the mutual-defense provisions of its founding treaty for the only time in its history to support the U.S.

Today, nearly half of Europeans think that the U.S. is a force for evil. That’s a pretty sobering thought.

Now, when we Americans hear such things, we usually point the finger back at Europe, saying that it’s them who have gone soft, and we who are standing by our principles. Leadership is lonely sometimes, we like to think.

I have to admit that I’m not entirely sure where I come down on this. It’s abundantly clear that as a nation, we’ve made our share of mistakes over the last few years. Much has been written about squandered opportunities after 9/11. Personally, I think a better leader — a statesman in the mold of ages past — could have seized that opportunity and shaped a truly world-changing moment. That said, I’m not entirely sure that in 20 years, we won’t look back and celebrate the rise of democracy in the Middle East that resulted from the agony of the period we’re living through now. I am doubtful, but as ever, hopeful.

What is also clear is that Europe is changing as quickly as the U.S. Europeans used to have long memories. The well of gratitude for the U.S contributions to winning two world wars and the Cold War was deep. Now, it seems, that well is dry.

I attribute this to the passing of the generation that lived through World War II and met so many liberating GIs as they passed through towns and villages. I also point to the mass multi-culturization of Europe by immigrants from every corner of the globe. Those who have only recently arrived have no cause for gratitude. Nevertheless, it’s sad to see old friendships, wrought from the fires of conflict, wither as interests diverge.

Europeans don’t vote in the U.S. presidential election, but they are fixated to its happenings. Many think that Obama will win handily. When they ask me, I tell them that I don’t know what the outcome will be, but that they should expect a very close, hard-fought contest, and that the outcome may look a lot like it did on that long night in 2000.

They surprised, often incredulous looks I get in reply speak volumes in reply.

And as the next President, whoever he may be, begins to formulate his own foreign policy, the views of Europe towards the United States are something that he should, and must, consider.

NOTE: The raw data of the survey can be found here (.xls file).

When I was in college, my outstanding history professor, Dr. Simms, opened each semester by reminding us that history was subject to interpretation. He went on to argue that the First World War was the most important event of the Twentieth Century.

His case was as detailed as it was compelling. Among his reasons: The war precipitated the Soviet Revolution that unseated the Czar and led to the Cold War; It destroyed the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires, leading to the partition of the Balkans and the Middle East and handing down to future generations the smoldering problems of those regions; it led to the Washington Naval Treaty, which set the stage for Germany and Japan to build fleets that would threaten the world while the navies of the great seagoing powers, Great Britain and the United States languished in mothballs; it set the stage of the independence of India and the state of decolonization by the European powers; and, most importantly, it took from Europe and entire generation of its best and brightest young men, as more than 10 million were slaughtered in the trenches of the Somme, the Marne, Gallipoli, and countless other places.

Europe still remembers the Great War. France still celebrates Armistice Day each year on November 11. (It’s been changed to Veterans Day in the U.S. and Remembrance Day in the U.K. and the Commonwealth in order to include World War II veterans, though poppies are still worn in the U.K.) In Belgium, where much of fighting took place, the end of the war is commemorated by remembering the day of peace in Flanders Fields.

But in the U.S., we seem to have forgotten about the Great War altogether. Two magnificent pieces in today’s Washington Post explore the reasons why. But the facts are these: Nearly 5 million Americans were under arms during the Great War. 116,000 died. And There is no national memorial for World War I veterans or those killed in combat.

Corporal Frank Buckles has one final fact to add: 1. That’s the number of U.S. World War I veterans still alive today. And according to George Will, Cpl. Buckles is “feeling fine, thank you for asking.”

Whole industries have sprouted for remember the U.S. Civil War, World War II and Vietnam. Increasingly, thanks to amazing authors like David McCullough, Americans are rediscovering the period of our independence and founding. But somehow, we the brave men who fought in France in 1917 and 1918 are too often overlooked. We do those men and the memories a grave disservice by neglecting their sacrifice.

So on this Memorial Day, let’s make a special effort to remember the importance of the First World War, remember what they did, and maybe, take a bit of time to learn more about why they did it.

Late last night, Prime Minister Gordon Brown began his first trip to the U.S. as head of Her Majesty’s Government.

I had been paying only passing attention to the trip, as it seemed to offer little hope that anything impactful would be achieved.

But then I heard the destination for the PM’s transatlantic flight, and his itinerary for his first day in the U.S., and I realized something impactful already has happened.

Brown’s first stop? New York City. And his first destination? The U.N.

Now, I suspect that if asked, the folks at Downing Street would say that the decision to go to NY first was purely a result of scheduling concerns or convenience or whatever. (I actually have asked Downing Street this question via their Twitter feed. If they respond, I will post their answer is in its entirety.)

But over the past few weeks, political watchers are starting to notice that Mr. Brown may not prioritize the British relationship with the United States to the same extent as some of his predecessors.

Heritage Foundation scholar Nile Gardiner, writing in the Sunday Times, points out that, “since Brown took charge, the British embassy [in Washington] no longer uses the term ’special relationship’, and that the Anglo-American alliance has been downgraded to Britain’s ‘most important bilateral relationship’ in deference to Brussels.” (More on this from a story in the Telegraph.)

So it’s not hard to conclude that the Prime Minister’s travel schedule reflects his foreign policy priorities.

But as UK blogger Tim Montgomerie points out, “The world is a safer, stronger place when Britain and America are close.”

For me, as an American who loves Great Britain and believes that the Anglo-American alliance is one of the most important and effective on the planet, it’s disappointing to see either leader treat it this way.

Is this the end of the special relationship? Not a chance. Soon there will be a new President, and in another year or two, there might even be a new Prime Minister. Each may have different views and priorities than his predecessor. And thanks to the common culture, historical and language bonds between Britain and the U.S., the relationship can be swiftly rebuilt in the right hands.

That’s a hope for the future. For now, I hope Mr. Brown’s visit to the U.S. helps him see how truly vital the relationship is — for both nations.

It would be easy to single out Governor Mike Huckabee for this distinction. Heck, I may be guilty of underrating him even today. Huckabee turned in magnificent performances in debates for months, he campaigned hard, and he carved out an interesting political niche — all with virtually no cash.

But picking Huckabee would be boring.

So I’m going to select former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Blair’s Labor Party basically ran their party’s leader out of town on a rail last summer so that they could hand the reins of government over to Gordon Brown.

Brown was supposedly young and energized, similar to Blair when he first came into office.

Blair had the courage of convictions, and was a rare statesman in modern politics. Calling him Churchillian may sound like hyperbole, but it’s not far off.

Brown, in contrast, seems rather ordinary. And his record since moving into #10 Downing Street has been pretty rough. Labor’s electoral fortunates have tanked. Brown’s policy agenda seems broadly thwarted. And Brown’s positive attributes don’t seem to have materialized.

So in retrospect, it turns out that Tony Blair was doing an awfully good job as Prime Minister. I wonder how many Labor MPs and party leaders would like the chance to reconsider their treatment of Mr. Blair in his final months?

Jim: I wonder if I can go with not quite a figure, but an event.

In my gut, I’m sympathetic to the Hollywood writers. I think if they’re not seeing any dough from work of theirs that is distributed over the Internet, they’re getting a raw deal, and the studios ought to give them their fair share. I’m not an accountant or an arbiter, I can’t tell you what a fair share is, but I figure it can’t be too far off from revenue percentages from other media.

But I think we’ll look back on the Writer’s Strike as An Event That Changed Hollywood and Pop Culture Forever.

As the strike has brought most television production to a standstill, we’ve seen networks getting ready to go all-reality, all the time. One of two things are going to happen as NBC becomes all-choir training and all-American Gladiators for the majority of their programming. Either there will be enough viewers to keep the networks in the black, or there won’t, and the networks will fold. If it’s the former, the networks may never feel a need to do more than a few scripted shows per year. If it’s the latter, once people find other entertainment options, I’m not sure they will come back.

The traditional audience for television is disappearing - going to the Internet, going to video game systems, going to On Demand, DVDs… perhaps even reading. One of the recurring themes here on On Tap is our collective irritation that television networks cancel shows we like like Firefly and keep crappy shows on the air because they’re cheap to produce. I watch a lot less television than I used to. With a baby in the house, I’m seeing fewer movies than I did a year ago.

In an effort to preserve their share of profits from new distribution systems, the striking writers and stubborn studios are hastening the destruction of the old distribution systems. It’s a truly colossal change, and nobody really knows what media world will be waiting for us when we get to the other side of this clash. The ramifications of this fight are, I submit, underrated in their importance.

This, from the Club for Growth, is an excellent idea.

In 1930, Congress passed and President Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. At the time, this protectionist measure was vigorously opposed by 1,028 of the nation’s top economists. They rightly predicted the tariffs would devastate the economy. And, in fact, the country subsequently plunged into the Great Depression.

Now some in Congress are considering ways to enact similar protectionist policies against China. Once again, 1,028 of America’s top economists, from all 50 states and top universities, have signed the following petition sponsored by the Club for Growth in opposition to protectionist policies against China.

The Club’s petition illustrates the same point that the 1930 original did — protectionism is folly.

According to this story from the Associated Press, “A “fat tax” on salty, sugary and fatty foods could save thousands of lives each year, according to a study published” by Oxford University researchers.

Know the difference between liberty and tyranny?

Liberty is having the freedom to make our own choices.

Tyranny is having the government make our choices for us.

And that’s exactly what these nanny-staters are proposing in yet another effort to have government save us from ourselves. Well, you know what? I don’t want to be saved. Indeed, I don’t think there’s a role for government to play in the obesity discussion. If I want to eat unhealthy food and die young, that’s my decision and, more importantly, it’s my responsibility.

Cam: Amen to that. When I got fat, it wasn’t the government’s fault. It was my own. And it wasn’t the government that’s making me lose weight, it’s me (and my wife, but whatever).

When I’m on the road, waiting for planes and sitting on tarmacs and taxi-ways means reading USA Today more than I usually do.

Which is how I came upon an op/ed in Wednesday’s edition by John Lehman, former Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration, titled, “The New Space Race.”

NASA has been a favorite punching bag of politicians, pundits and special interest groups. Some scry a lack of devotion to fighting global warming — controversy assisted recently by NASA chief Michael Griffin’s comment that he was not sure it was ‘a problem we must wrestle with.’ Others see in NASA’s commitment to manned space exploration a misplaced romaticism, while still others deplore a lack of emphasis on basic science. The question of whether we will remain in a leader in the exploration of space exploration, however, if too important to leave to special interest groups or pundits.

Lehman goes on to detail Chinese, Japanese, and Indian efforts to get into space, and the important objectives that each nation hopes to accomplish. He argues that American leadership in space is at serious risk and makes a compelling case that returning to the moon and reclaiming our leadership has crucial technical and commercial benefits.

I’m sold.

Not too long ago, I had the chance to visit Kennedy Space Center in Florida. While there, I attended a briefing from a NASA official on the future of the U.S. manned space program. With only a few missions left before the Shuttle fleet is retired, NASA is planning a return to old-fashioned rocketry for its new moon program. But between the shuttles’ retirement and the eventual roll out of the new rocket fleet, there will be a period of several years where the U.S. will have no vehicle for manned space flight.

My fear is that we never will again. Once the regular manned flights stop, I fear that NASA opponents in Congress will succeed in permanently scuttling our manned space program.

There are countless compelling arguments in favor of the American space program. Lehman presents a number. There are others. And in this age where it seems that the government can funding for every conceivable program, it’s shameful that NASA has to crawl on its knees every year to avoid further cuts. It’s time for us to get serious. NASA engineers bested President Kennedy’s goal of putting a man on the moon in ten years with ingenuity and attitude.

To be sure, as Lehman observes, “The drive to explore the moon today is different from the Cold War sprint that ended when Armstrong descended to the Sea of Tranquility in 1969.” But the drive should still be there. The potential benefits are limitless, including the most important benefit of all — the expansion of human knowledge and understanding of our universe. Let’s go.

Cam: 20 years ago, I wanted to be an astronaut. And because my mom is a kind and loving mom, she actually sent me to SpaceCamp in Huntsville, Alabama for a week. I had a blast. In fact, I had so much fun and learned so much that she sent me back the next year.

Eventually, as I got older, I realized that I did not have the science and math proficiency to become an astronaut. But I’ve always had a soft spot for manned space programs, and I’d love to see a return to the Moon. I’d love to see a mission to Mars even more, because it seems like going back to the Moon is kind of re-inventing the wheel… but then again, maybe the wheel does need to be re-invented.

Regardless, I can’t imagine not having a manned space program in this country. I think it’s appalling that it’s even a possibility.

Marshall: When I wrote this yesterday on the plane, I completely forgot that the Space Shuttle Atlantis was scheduled to go into space last night. It did, indeed, lift off on time and is now chasing down the International Space Station.

Jim: Hey, why is it all that different from the Cold War era? Could you come up with a clearer canary-in-the-coal-mine symbol of American decline than the idea that we have left manned exploration of space to the Indians and Chinese? If you were a young aspring astronaut like Cam was– a great engineering mind from any country — would you rather work at NASA, or in the Chinese, Indian, Japanese or other space agency that is still sending people up there? Would you rather operate a Mars Rover by joystick, or risk everything for a shot at glory at being the first man or woman to step onto another planet?

(Having said that, the private development of space travel is growing by leaps and bounds. Maybe American private industry and space tourism will lead mankind’s steps into the final frontier…)

However, let me acknowledge that perhaps I have underestimated NASA’s accomplishments in recent years. As Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee asked in a visit to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, “Did the Mars Pathfinder probe manage to photograph the flag that astronaut Neil Armstrong had left behind?”