It's simple. I make my judgements based on current events and particulars. I can dislike what one country in Europe is doing and like what another is doing or identify with in some way. Sometimes, I can like some of what a country is doing and dislike another thing they're doing. For example, I can like how England is responding to the current events, but I'm pissed off at how the Jean Charles de Menezes inquest is still three weeks away. On the other hand, if they do a good job, in March my opinion might be totally reversed. Right now, Denmark is going through a rough time, and I think they can use some support. I thought that Chavez was a waste of flesh until he actually started delivering on his promises, and now I think he's a hoopy frood.
It's not important for me to define myself politically as a "Euro Basher" or a "Euro Lover." Nor do I have a particular need to view Europe as a monolith. For some things, it can be considered more monolithic than others. But it doesn't puzzle me at all that people who sometimes bash European countries will also sometimes praise them; it seems quite natural.
You have to ask the question "why?" because you don't think that way. You indicate so yourself when you say that Denmark hasn't changed at all. What's important to you is the identity of countries and peoples (e.g. Denmark) and the identity of people (e.g. "Euro Bashers," "Euro Lovers," "Flag Wavers"). As long as someone has the basic worldview, even if it's on "the other side," you can understand that. So you can groove with Dr. Adequate and Mephisto and The Fool. But you can also groove with Skeptic, even though you may vehemently disagree with him, because the basic framework of thought is the same.
On the other hand, you can't groove with me or Mycroft or Mark or BPSCG or Luke T., to name a few, because the framework of thought is different. It's possible that you don't even see that there is a difference in the framework of thought or will at least vehemently deny it.
