His son and successor Charles ruthlessly exploited opposition to the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire, Ludwig of Bavaria, to get himself elected, not perhaps legally, as Holy Roman Emperor, so that his realm extended far beyond Bohemia and Luxembourg. Some historians have drawn vague parallels between the Holy Roman Empire and the European Union, even seeing the Empire as a model for Europe’s future. Charles, on the other hand, continued to exploit his position to play factional politics, excluding his bitterest rivals, the house of Habsburg, from the small college of Electors whose task it would be to choose an emperor when the throne fell vacant. It is some testimony to the futility of this policy that, even without being Electors, the Habsburgs nonetheless gained the imperial throne in the 15th century, and held it almost without a break until the Empire was dissolved in 1806. In fact, if one reads the “Golden Bull” of 1356 in which Charles IV set out his new constitution for the Empire, you soon see that the Emperor was far more obsessed by ceremonial than by political arrangements. Much of this lengthy document consists of the processional order of the Electors and of the seating arrangements at the imperial high table. When he did lay down rules to the effect that great princes were no longer to divide up their estates among their sons in their wills, he himself did not observe what he preached. He was also a lavish spender, as the bejewelled walls of his castle at Karlštejn still bear witness. His reign can be summoned up with the words “much froth”.

On the other hand, this was nothing compared to the sins attributed to his successor Wenzel or Wenceslas. Wenzel’s reputation was blackened by his enemies, and one should not believe all that was reported: that he set his hunting dogs on his wife, who was mauled to death; that he was rescued from captivity at the hands of his enemies by the boat-girl Suzanna who rowed him across the moat of the castle where he was imprisoned; and that he took solace in very heavy drinking. The Oxford historian Bishop Stubbs thought him the most worthless figure ever to sit on a throne: “There have been worse kings, perhaps, that is, men in whose wickedness have done more harm to their subjects, but surely none in whom there is so little of anything admirable to redeem the blank stupidity of his crimes.” Finally the Electors, to whom he had been paying no attention, decided that they had had enough of him and in 1400 they declared him deposed from the Empire. In reality, he was hamstrung by his father’s willingness to hand out the family lands to his relatives. Quite simply, he ran out of funds.

M. Juncker should reflect on the experiences of his predecessors in Luxembourg politics. Obstinacy, arrogance and wastefulness have done nothing to make the Europe in which he believes attractive.