A lot of e-mail over the weekend following on the Fortuyn remembrance and the Bush visit. There is a huge variety of perceptions on essentially the same two issues: the changing relationship between the US and Europe, and Europe's internal turmoil. This one I found very instructive:

To me it's also very suprising that the EU seems to be more of an existing entity amongst US citizens than it seems to be in Europe itself: the EU has a huge communication problem and there's a big democratic gap between the EU governmental bodies, bureaucrats and the European people.

Yes. But the gap exists because the average European isn't sufficiently engaged (or bothered) to make a real effort to effect change. Turn-out in the EU constitution referenda later this month will probably underline this serious lack of interest. For Americans that's probably the most baffling part, the absence of real democratic legitimacy that characterizes the whole EU project. And for some Europeans it is too.

One reader is optimistic however about Holland's chances to solve the problems of immigration and integration:

" ... Holland has become more sensitized to the fact that the problems are getting more severe rather than less. Britain and Italy are seeming to move more in the Dutch direction, and Germany is moving the opposite, and Spain is a push. So in many ways this puts Holland as the vanguard of the new synthesis of "enforced liberalism", which makes a great deal of sense. Despite what the rhetoric is, this is similar to the position that most Americans take: keep whatever religion you want, but if you don't believe in a liberal society, find somewhere else. Holland may be the first to realize that inclusive liberalism starts with excluding intolerant (and expansionistically intolerant) ideologies, a very illiberal idea.

Enforced liberalism. A contradiction in terms, but it could well be a model for all western societies going forward.

Again, thanks for the many interesting responses.