Your analysis of the perceived historical differences between Northern and Southern Europe, and how these contribute to the nature of the European Union today is mistaken and simplified. Firstly, your analysis is linear and contextualised, ignoring the preceding socio-political (and thus military) structures of the Greeks, Etruscans, Phoenicians, Gallic Celts, Judeans and pre-Republican Romans and Italians. Secondly, it ignores differences between various cultural groups in Europe i.e. Romantic, Slavic, Ugro-Finnic, Celtic and Germanic. Thirdly, it is arguable whether or not there is a quantitative disparity in individualism between Northern and Southern Europe, given the historic instability in France and Italy, the historic organizational hierarchy in Germany, and the willingness of Scandinavians to always 'follow the rules.' This does not rule out qualitative cultural differences, of course, such as inefficiency, laziness, liberty vs. equality, equality vs. equity, etc.

A society's level of individualism seems dependent on its perception of its military and economic status vis-a-vis other societies, and its perception of whether or not that status is changing, and if so, for the better or worse. England's insularity from continental European armies, successive victories over France, Spain and others, its seat at the table of Great Powers, and its economic success (due both to imperialism as much as free trade) made Englishmen confident and proud; their people's place in the sun assured, they could be free to individuate themselves, having been absolved of the need to rally together against some unified threat. The United States, founded on Anglo-Saxon values and having achieved superpower status is even more individualistic; of course, as American economic superiority is challenged and its geopolitical security threatened, the American people will seek greater unity and engage in nation-building (in a multinational, multiracial, multiethnic and multifaith society) commensurate with their perception of the necessity to do so.

The answer to your question can be found in the history of 2000 years ago.

The tribes living in Northern Europe had a rather simple social structure: small groups living together with one leader. There were not many social layers. Going to war, the leader would say, "beat them to pieces", and that's what each individual barbarian did. There was not a lot structure.

Came along the Romans. These guys were a lot more structured, especially their armies. These were divided in smaller parts (I forgot the names) which were divided in smaller parts, which in their turn were divided in smaller parts and so on. When the general said, “attack” the cohorts would move in a predetermined fashion. Individual initiative was not appreciated until it came down to the man to man combat.

Roman social and political life was also structured in this way. And so was and is the Catholic Church: 'normal people', monks and priests, bishops, archbishops, a pope (and there may be some layers in between). This structure has survived for centuries because it was the fittest. The power and responsibility resided at the top, the individual did what he/she was told.

However, all this structure did not always fit the barbarian’s culture. Protestantism got rid of the many layers and gave a lot more responsibility to the individual. In Catholicism higher layers can abolish the sins of the individuals of a lower layer. Not so in Protestantism: you’re responsible and you’re accountable to God. And where do you find Protestantism: where the Romans failed to get foothold for a longer period.

This is in broad lines the difference between northern (barbaric) Europe and southern (Roman) Europe. In southern Europe people expect to be told what they have to do. There is a lot of power distance between the layers. In northern Europe, the power distance is much smaller. Northern individuals tend to be more individualistic. Southern Europeans tend to form groups and follow the group they belong to.

The EU is organized following the Roman blueprint (were did the Presidents of the Commission come from?). All the little rules being crapped out by the EU are against barbarian way of life. That’s why the countries mentioned are a threat for the EU. Their population does not accept this.

I have been working across Europe. In business, the barbarian way of life (individual responsibility) is getting the upper hand. In the Netherlands, employees are more prone to pick up their individual responsibility than in France where employees tend to wait what they’re told to do. The barbarian way of life will prevail. The sooner the EU becomes barbarian, the better. The American constitution is barbarian.

I am a barbarian.

Please clarify your remarks about a state which you clearly know little about. Furthermore, you gloss over European history:

1. Great Britain: riven by civil war, threatened with conquest by France (more than once) and Germany
2. Netherlands: under Spanish dominion, defeated by England more than once, ravaged by the Thirty Years War and powerless before German military might in 1914 and 1940
3. Sweden: point taken
4. Denmark: intermittently under Swedish dominion, lost territory during the Thirty Years War, conquered by Germany in 1940
5. Norway: also intermittently under Swedish dominion and also conquered by Germany in 1940
6. Iceland: again rent by civil war and under Danish and Norwegian control at various times

Since when did Poles revolt against anything other than foreign occupation; since when did they create dictatorships that were any different from the regimes of their contemporaries?

"Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Poland. Spot a pattern?"

Well... Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden,  Denmark, Norway and Iceland are all states that have managed to rule themselves successfully for hundreds of years without resorting to dictators or revolutions. So their citizens must by now be fairly confident of being able to conduct their own affairs without any interference from supranational busybodies.

Poland, on the other hand, is Poland.

"Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Poland. Spot a pattern? "

no actually. The countries could hardly be more different other than the question was actually asked other than being steamrolled through parlaiment. 

In general, countries where there's not much corruption and people obey the law and trust their national governments don't like the EU. A counterexample is Germany, which is big enough so they think they can have a lot of influence within the EU and is also anxious about nationalism because of its history. Dunno if any of that applies to Poland, but they're Euroskeptical because their history makes them religious and nationalistic.

Jim Kalb (http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000)

Both the confessional and the climate hypotheses have some merit, but they are not fully satisfactory. Remember that both the British and the Swedes used to think that the EU represents unrestrained capitalism. Now they are euroskeptic for almost exactly the opposite reason, yet they have changed neither religion nor climate.