Hello ! I have to make a summary of a text. I submitted the introduction last week. Here there is the introduction + the summary itself. Is there any possible improvement ? Thanks for your help 
This text is an article by Václav Havel entitled “A New Impetus for Old Europe”. It was published in The Economist in 2004. V. Havel is a Czech writer and dramatist. He was a leading figure in the Velvet Revolution which brought down communism in Czechoslovakia. In December 1989, he was elected President of his country. In 1993, he was chosen as the first president of the newly-separate Czech Republic and served for two terms until February 2003.
“A New Impetus for Old Europe” approaches the geographical expansion of the European Union (E.U.) with the entry of ten new countries in 2004. More precisely, it examines the cultural, economical and political consequences entailed by the widening of the E.U. In V. Havel’s view, the enlargement eastward marks a turning point in the history of Europe. It “heralds the Union’s transformation into an entirely new geopolitical entity”. We can wonder about the reasons for this statement.
According to V. Havel, the expansion of 2004 will entail/bring about great/significant/considerable cultural and political outcomes/impact/repercussions. In the first place/firstly, the cold war (in capital letters? Cold War?) separated the central and eastern countries from Europe during nearly fifty years. The E.U. widening into these states (is it correct?) means thus a transition between the past (finished with the fall of the Berlin Wall/the fall of Berlin Wall (wall or Wall ?) and the current period/the present.
This transition raises a certain number of problems (not too heavy?). Indeed, the essence of the E.U. enlargement/the E.U.’s enlargement is (a richer verb?) a broadening of the area of commonly shared values. Yet, (a comma or no comma?) the iron curtain entailed a considerable cultural and political gap between western and eastern countries it will be difficult to fill in. The different member-states (member-states or member states?) will have difficulties to come to new commonly shared values.
Secondly/in the second place, on the more strictly political side, the expansion eastward puts an end to the idea of a supranational/supranationalist approach of Europe (a synonymous of approach? I know it is a good word but it is taken from the text and I want a different word). Indeed (a synonymous? I use it too many times in my text), the new member states want/would like (a richer verb?) to keep their national sovereignty recently acquired.
Lastly/at last/finally/in the last place, the expansion of 2004 poses the problem of the future of Europe. After the entry of a few former western eastern block countries, Russia integration/Russia’s integration will become very problematic. Moreover, broadening the boarder of E.U., the enlargement will also raise the question of Turkey entry.
This text is an article by Václav Havel entitled “A New Impetus for Old Europe”. It was published in The Economist in 2004. V. Havel is a Czech writer and dramatist. He was a leading figure in the Velvet Revolution which brought down communism in Czechoslovakia. In December 1989, he was elected President of his country. In 1993, he was chosen as the first president of the newly-separate Czech Republic and served for two terms until February 2003.
“A New Impetus for Old Europe” approaches the geographical expansion of the European Union (E.U.) with the entry of ten new countries in 2004. More precisely, it examines the cultural, economical and political consequences entailed by the widening of the E.U. In V. Havel’s view, the enlargement eastward marks a turning point in the history of Europe. It “heralds the Union’s transformation into an entirely new geopolitical entity”. We can wonder about the reasons for this statement.
According to V. Havel, the expansion of 2004 will entail/bring about great/significant/considerable cultural and political outcomes/impact/repercussions. In the first place/firstly, the cold war (in capital letters? Cold War?) separated the central and eastern countries from Europe during nearly fifty years. The E.U. widening into these states (is it correct?) means thus a transition between the past (finished with the fall of the Berlin Wall/the fall of Berlin Wall (wall or Wall ?) and the current period/the present.
This transition raises a certain number of problems (not too heavy?). Indeed, the essence of the E.U. enlargement/the E.U.’s enlargement is (a richer verb?) a broadening of the area of commonly shared values. Yet, (a comma or no comma?) the iron curtain entailed a considerable cultural and political gap between western and eastern countries it will be difficult to fill in. The different member-states (member-states or member states?) will have difficulties to come to new commonly shared values.
Secondly/in the second place, on the more strictly political side, the expansion eastward puts an end to the idea of a supranational/supranationalist approach of Europe (a synonymous of approach? I know it is a good word but it is taken from the text and I want a different word). Indeed (a synonymous? I use it too many times in my text), the new member states want/would like (a richer verb?) to keep their national sovereignty recently acquired.
Lastly/at last/finally/in the last place, the expansion of 2004 poses the problem of the future of Europe. After the entry of a few former western eastern block countries, Russia integration/Russia’s integration will become very problematic. Moreover, broadening the boarder of E.U., the enlargement will also raise the question of Turkey entry.
