A ‘Federal Republic of Europe’?

  • Emil J. Kirchner


Whereas containment had been an important by-product of the FRG’s history over the first 40 years, German dissolution into an EC framework became a main preoccupation in the aftermath of German unification. Developments surrounding the preparation and ratification procedure of the 1991 Maastricht accord indicated, however, that the latter would be a difficult process. Not only did some countries take a tough stand in the Maastricht negotiations by insisting on ‘opt-out clauses’, but public opinion on the agreement was generally divided within all countries. Some of these opinions, like the one expressed in the Danish referendum on the ratification of the Maastricht agreement, were coloured by government unpopularity and fear of potential German dominance.’


European Union Federal Republic European Monetary Union European Parliament Maastricht Accord 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Svend Auken, ‘A Message from Denmark’, Parliamentary Brief, vol. 1, July 1992, no. 2 pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Quoted by John Eisenhamer, in ‘Kohl spells out commitments to Maastricht’, The Independent June 17, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Peter R. Weilemann, ‘Einstellungen zur Europäischen Union nach Maastricht’, Interne Studie Nr. 30/1992, Forschungsinstitut der Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Sankt Augustin, 22. 1. 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Horst Teltchik, ‘Germany’s new role in the new order’, Die Zeit, Feb. 2, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    Hans Tietmeyer, ‘Economic and Monetary Union: A German Perspective’, The Ludwig Erhard Memorial Lecture, February 18 1992, European Institute, London School of Economics and Konrad Adenauer Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    Elizabeth Pond, ‘Germany in the New Europe’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 71, 1992, p. 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 9.
    Dieter Schröder, Süddeutsche Zeitung March 14, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    Hans-Dietrich Genscher, ‘CSCE must create culture of coexistence between Vancouver and Vladivostok’, Der Tagesspiegel, July 14, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    Peter Ludlow, ed., Setting European Community Priorities 1991–2, (London: Brassey’s, 1991 ), p. 101.Google Scholar
  10. 15.
    Kevin Boyle, ‘What Will the New Europe Mean for its Citizens?’, Debate Series ‘Shaping the 1990’s’, April 15, 1992, paper delivered at the Irish Council of the European movement, p. 4.Google Scholar
  11. 16.
    Karl Kaiser, ‘Germany’s Unification,’ Foreign Affairs, vol. 70, 1991, pp. 179–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 20.
    See William Olson and A. J. R. Groom, International Relations then and now: origins and trends in interpretation, ( London: Harper Collins Academic, 1991 ), p. 173.Google Scholar
  13. 23.
    Rupert Scholz, ‘Federal nature of the new Europe needs legal underpinning’, Die Welt, Jul. 13, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 24.
    See Udo Bergdoll, ‘Foreign Minister Genscher: when the fixed coordinates of world affairs begin to dance’, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Jan. 7, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 25.
    See Paul Taylor, ‘Beregovy warns against “Europhobia”’, The Independent, May 6, 1992.Google Scholar
  16. 26.
    Michael Stürmer, ‘Historical perspectives to the Cold War’s fault lines’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Mar. 3, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 27.
    Quoted by Helmut Kohl ‘Excerpts from Chancellor Helmut Kohl’s speech at the presentation of the 1992 Konrad Adenauer Prizes in Munich’, May 17, 1992, Press Release Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, London, May 20, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© New York University Press 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emil J. Kirchner

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations