Exactly 190 years after the Battle of Waterloo, when the British defeated Napoleon and ended one dictator's ambition of global conquest, the British and French were fighting again over the future of Europe. This time, the Brits were outnumbered 24-1.

Less than a month earlier French voters had rejected their president's recommendation and voted "non" on the proposed European constitution. Three days later, Dutch voters followed suit.

But somehow, less than four weeks later it was the British who were considered the bad Europeans and the chief obstacle to further European unity.

The European summit chaired by the prime minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker, June 16 and 17, failed to resolve major differences between Britain and France. The British have been major net contributors to the EU since membership in 1973, while France has been a major recipient.

In 1984 Britain's prime minister at the time, Margaret Thatcher, demanded and won an annual rebate of the U.K. subsidy to even things out. The other 24 countries of the EU want the rebate ended. The British insist it remain until the French agree to reduce farm subsidies. These eat up 40 percent of the EU budget, while only 5 percent of Europe's people are employed in farming.

The French, with multiple small-scale farms, are major recipients of farm support. In effect, the British would be subsidizing the French, if they give up the rebate Mrs. Thatcher negotiated!

Europe vs. the United States

Sometimes it's hard for Americans to understand Europe, as it is for Europeans to understand America. Europeans and others have little comprehension of just how big the United States is.

Americans, on the other hand, have difficulty understanding that each European country is distinct from the others, with its own ethnic identity, language and way of life.

Americans also fail to understand how old Europe is, with a long history of over two millennia of conflict between the various European tribes.

It is impossible to equate the European Union and the United States, as their origins are so different.

The United States was formed by the coming together of 13 British colonies. All were dominated by English-speaking people with similar ideas that had evolved over centuries in England itself. It wasn't easy to bring all the colonies together and it took decades to do so, with the Civil War being the major test almost a century after independence and the formation of the new republic.

On the other hand, Europe is a continent comprised of many different nation states, each dominated by a distinct ethnic group. These nations have often been in conflict with each other throughout history, most recently in the two world wars of the last century.

The European Union was (and still is) a valiant attempt to bring the nations of Europe together so that war between them will never happen again.

Six western European countries formed the European Economic Community in 1957. Those six have expanded to 25. The "ever closer union" they pledged themselves to form in the Treaty of Rome eventually led to the European Union. A few years ago 12 of the then 15 members dissolved their own currencies to share the euro. Thirteen EU countries have abolished all passport requirements between them, making travel in Europe much easier. All 25 member countries are committed to the basic ideals of the new Europe.

Leaders of the 25 member countries agreed on a new constitution just a few months ago. The parliaments of some member countries approved it, while in others, it was put to a referendum of the people. Ten nations have approved the constitution. But voters in France and the Netherlands said no. Since all 25 countries must agree, Europe's future is in doubt.

Does this mean the end of the European enterprise?

British historian Niall Ferguson asks a similar question in the U.S. magazine The New Republic: "Does the constitution's likely demise mean that the European Union is stuck where the United States would have been if the 13 states had never got beyond the Articles of Confederation?" His answer: "No. The European Union is already much further along the road to federation than the United States was in 1787. And that is why the rejection of the new constitution does not spell the end of Europe. The existing EU arrangements may be a mess, but they are workable" ("Federalist Style," June 20, 2005).

Interestingly, he adds: "Without the new constitution, Europe will look less like the United States and more like the Holy Roman Empire... with a bewildering agglomeration of overlapping institutions and jurisdictions... [R]ather than a single, strong executive arm, it will have multiple, overlapping tentacles."

Mr. Ferguson gives some insight into what he sees as the primary reason French and Dutch voters rejected the proposed constitution: fear of German domination.

Polls showed French concern about the imposition of the Anglo-Saxon economic model through the new proposed constitution, while both the Dutch and the French expressed anxiety about further enlargement, particularly into Islamic Turkey. But both were concerned that the new constitution would give Germany a greater say in European affairs, as Germany is the biggest single nation in the EU.

"Herein lies the real significance of the constitution. It would have signally increased the importance of Germany, a major worry to the French and the Dutch. Unsurprisingly, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is trying harder than any other European leader to keep the constitution alive."

Interestingly, the countries that have approved the new treaty include those that formed the Axis powers of World War II.

Iron mixed with clay

The biblical books of Daniel and Revelation prophesy of a coming European-centered superpower often referred to as the Beast power. The reference is to Daniel's vision of four beasts in chapter 7.

Daniel received his vision 2,600 years ago. It accurately predicted the fall of Babylon and its replacement by the Medo-Persian Empire, followed, in turn, by the Greek and Roman Empires. The Roman Empire was to continue down through the centuries until "the Ancient of Days was seated" (Daniel 7:9), a reference to the coming Kingdom of God. The European Union, founded by the Treaty of Rome, is the latest attempt to unify Europe.

Europe has come a long way in less than 50 years, since the founding of the European Common Market in 1957. It is today the world's biggest trading bloc and biggest single market. Its economic clout is felt around the world. Yes, there are some serious economic problems—high unemployment and slow growth being the two main ones. But the positive accomplishments of the EU should not be overlooked.

The greatest challenge for the EU is building "an ever closer union" when each country is populated by a distinct and separate ethnic group with its own language, governmental system and history. The book of Daniel describes this mix as "iron mixed with ceramic clay" (Daniel 2:43). In other words, it's far more difficult to bring the European nations together than it was to unite 13 English-speaking colonies in North America over two centuries ago.

It should also be noted that the 25 nations of the European Union are not the same as the 10 nations that form the final resurrection of the Roman Empire. "The ten horns which you saw are ten kings [or governments] who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast" (Revelation 17:12-13).

Whereas it is possible that the 25 countries could eventually be transformed into 10 regions that come together to form the "beast" power, it seems more likely that the present EU will divide into what is often referred to as a "two-tier Europe." This would be a central core of countries (the 10) that would commit to full political, military and economic union, with a second tier of loosely confederated countries that would be a part of the trading bloc.

This does not mean the EU has failed. The EU has succeeded in its central mission of economically uniting Europe to such an extent that war between its members is hard to imagine. The EU has gradually evolved over the last five decades into what it is now.

The proposed new constitution may or may not go ahead, but the nations of Europe are unlikely to jettison the good that has been accomplished—the single market and the trading system that has helped all Europeans to achieve political stability and economic prosperity unrivaled in their collective history. WNP