MoveOnEurope

The European Union is facing unseen turbulence. Euro-skepticism and anti-EU sentiment have gained ground in almost all Member States. Populist right wing parties have positioned themselves successfully as self-f-proclaimed warrantors of a bright future which would only be the reflection of a confrontational past. And the EU’s institutions are increasingly perceived as bureaucratic monsters lacking democratic legitimacy and interfering inappropriately with national interests.

The reality is, however, that much of Europe has evolved into a space of peace, freedom and prosperity which is beyond any doubt unique in the history of mankind and has put Europe once again at the forefront of civilising development. The European Union is far from being perfect, but certainly has delivered on its promise. Hence, it may seem to be hard to understand why so many of its citizens are increasingly discontent with its institutions or even bemoaning its mere existence.

An analysis of the current state of the Union needs to start in the past. The beginnings of the European Union were the modest albeit in itself ambitious idea of a cooperation between Germany and France after the end of World War II resulting in the Schuman Declaration. This first step was the consequence of the understanding that the replacement of confrontation by cooperation was not just wise, but almost a question of survival. Moreover, cooperation held the promise of fostering economic prosperity. These two basic assumptions were built on the hope that the common European cultural ground would be profound enough to develop a better future. The six founding Member States of the European project cooperated successfully, and over time an increasingly complex institutional structure was created while more and more states joined. This process was primarily driven by a top-down-approach. Political elites recognised the advantages and devised goals, as the vast majority of citizens was very willing to understand – what was easily understandable – and followed.

However, this decades-long process of increasing cooperation and integration materialised by incremental changes which were discussed nationally and frequently explicitly legitimized through national democratic procedures. At the same time, though, the national debates fell short of leading to a thorough understanding of the implications of such incremental change that cut more and more into the Member States’ sovereignty and required growing solidarity among them. The European Union undoubtedly evolved as a rather successful project which delivered peace, freedom, opportunities, prosperity and security. By delivering on its promise it was widely well accepted and cherished, but as its competencies were growing, its impact was intensifying and its requirements became more noticeable. The lack of popular legitimacy became increasingly evident. Too many citizens had not built up sufficient commitment to the unfolding European Union nor had they developed an additional European identity which could have been the fundament of the creation of a European demos.

The historically unique and successful project of European cooperation and integration has, therefore, been democratically legitimised in its step-by-step development, but lacks at the same time the conscious authorisation regarding its far reaching consequences as a whole and in the long term by many of its citizens.

This development has gone without notice for decades, but has naturally become increasingly evident with the deepening of the EU. In addition, the fundamental trend towards a strengthened self-conception of the individual has induced a more critical attitude also with respect to changes in society and politics. The European Union is, therefore, perceived in a more critical way – as everything else. Given this situation and the advanced state of the European project, there needs to be a change to a bottom-up-approach to consolidate the EU’s legitimacy and further develop the Union. Yet, the individual’s identity is still too often rooted in national categories and does - since the European Union is perceived somewhat intuitively as illegitimate – not suggest pushing the European Union from the citizens’ level.

That situation holds true in different ways for the Member States of the EU. The Eastern European Member States accessed the Union after having been coined by a substantially distinct recent history compared to those without a communist-authoritarian past under Soviet influence. The full sovereignty gained after the breakdown of the Soviet empire was soon reduced by accession to the European Union. Although this was an inevitable implication and a trade-off for economic prosperity and security, it turned out to be difficult to cope with. Therefore, the sensitiveness regarding the reduction of sovereignty in these countries needs to be well understood, since it politically matters. Differences in history, mentality and culture are, however, existent among the Western and Southern EU Member States as well.

The European cooperation and integration which has materialized in the format of the European Union needs to be recognised in a historic perspective. After the formation and establishment of nation states, that constituted the fundamental geopolitical change in the past centuries, the development of the European Union is the subsequent evolution. It is worth stressing that European integration has – as a matter of fact – been an evolution, not a revolution. It is coined by peace, not by violence. Still, it implies a fundamental political paradigm shift. Developments of such dimension can generally not be expected to unfold easily and in a straight or smooth way. Surprisingly enough, the EU’s development has been rather stable and persistent so far. If, now, it is entering a truly challenging situation, this challenge can only be understood appropriately in the wider historic scenario.

The underlying reason for the turbulence the EU faces currently was addressed earlier. However, the concrete causes for its outbreak have been two recent crises. First, the EU was hard hit by the financial and economic crisis 2008 which challenged monetary and regulatory mechanisms as well as solidarity in very substantial ways. Weaknesses of deficient structures due to insufficient integration laid bare profound differences in governance, culture and resilience among Member States resulting in a revival of nationalist forces. The second crisis was triggered by the migratory wave the EU has been facing in 2015 and thereafter. The management of the upcoming problems showed substantial deficits regarding the ability to design common solutions based on mutual understanding, flexibility and solidarity – and it still does. This has resulted in nurturing nationalist attitudes, and fundamentally called into question the existing commitment to the process of European cooperation and integration among broad groups in the societies of most Member States.

The dimension of the European project, the extent to which it is perceived as insufficiently legitimised, as well as these two concrete crises have induced a situation in which the EU is now existentially challenged. Hence, the elections to the European Parliament 2019 might produce a result which positions those who want to do away with the very substance of the European Union as the second largest political group. In any case, there can be little doubt that euro-skeptic forces will become more influential and will at best demand reform disguising actual demolition.

Analysing the development also urges for dealing with the respective political responsibilities. Concerning the lack of European identity it is obvious that the national governments which supported the incremental development of the European project failed to foster effectively the citizens’ commitment to it. Such commitment has to be based on concrete advantages, but needs also to relate to the big long-term perspective, in order to nurture basic human emotional aspects. Indeed, the European institutions have frequently and to a high extent remained a third party, an intruder who often contributes positively, but still is considered an intruder. Certainly, much has been done to promote the European idea, but it has been by far too little leaving the EU open to being misused for national political maneuvering.

Regarding the two mentioned crises it would be inappropriate to make a simple judgment by taking advantage of the benefit of hindsight. Many things have been done well and too many things not well enough. However, it has become evident that within the European community – being a human social construct – the right tone, mutual respect and the understanding of others’ emotions is as essential as rational concepts. It would be advisable to elaborate a “code of conduct” which provides large and small, economically stronger or weaker Member States with a guideline for dealing with each other in an adequate and balanced way.

With reference to the foregoing considerations it becomes obvious that time has come in the European Union to engage in a basic debate, if in the long term Europe should be subject to an evolution towards a post-nationalist multicultural community. As a matter of fact, many aspects of cooperation and integration entail an inner dynamic for ever more intense cooperation and integration. Numerous of the EU’s current problems are actually the consequence of a process which is only partly complete.

In any case, being strongly built on democracy the European Union will not be able to move on without the fundamental and persistent commitment of the broad majority of its citizens to the European project – in the long term and in a comprehensive way. It will be crucial to narrow and potentially close the gap between the political and institutional reality and the self-conceived frequently predominantly national identity of many citizens. To achieve this, it will be imperative to convey that the European project is not a zero-sum-game. Rather, the individual citizen will gain more on the European level than s(he) might lose on the national level. Putting national emotions and fashionable populist trends aside, the proof is already there – and is quite obvious.

Such a debate has to be honest and profound. Positions must not serve selfish short-term goals, but need to be conceived beyond formalist political correctness as well as nationalist provincialism, which would not withstand the reality of globalisation anyway. Compelling arguments abound.

Concerning internal benefits of the EU it shall be stated that many of those standing up for the thorough restoration of the order of nation states will very likely fall short of convincing arguments, once it comes to restraints which affects economic prosperity, daily comfort, security and environmental protection. The empty populist promises need to be debunked. At the same time, it is essential to respect concerns of citizens and to act accordingly.

With respect to the positioning of European societies in an era of irreversible globalisation it needs to be recognised that European culture has been shaping the world profoundly for many centuries. This includes particularly values, legal concepts, ideologies, technologies and attitudes. At the same time Europe has hardly seen any substantial foreign impact apart from influence by the USA as a leading world power after World War II. So, Europe needs to become aware that global power indeed has an active and passive aspect.

If Europe wants to safeguard its unique balance between freedom and social responsibility, its independence, its extraordinary quality of living and its potential as serving as an example that confrontation can be replaced by cooperation, EU Member States have to join forces and speak with one voice on the global stage – efficiently and effectively. Standing alone as European nation states, not even the big countries would be able to deal at eye level with rising powers like China, India, or others. Turning a blind eye at this issue in the short term might not change daily life considerably. In the long term, however, the consequences would be striking and very likely undesirable, from a European as well as from a national point of view.

Whatever the outcome of the European elections 2019 will be, it is imperative to engage in dealing with the European challenge actively – in order to pursue common interests, in order to improve the understanding and respect for different histories and mentalities, in order to embrace the diversity of cultures, in order to leave behind national barriers and, ultimately, in order to build a European Union which is based on the commitment of its citizens. The means of the past will not serve to conquer the future.

Almost two and a half years after the Brexit referendum, and only a few months before the date when the United Kingdom should leave the European Union according to Article 50 of the Treaty on the EU, the negotiations on the terms of leaving seem to have produced some result. The British side has been lacking vision, concept and creativity. The EU27 has been committed to the four indivisible freedoms and inhibited “cherry picking”. The Union could, of course, not abandon its core substance, and might otherwise have created a persuasive precedent for other Member States in a time of reviving nationalist tendencies. Contrariwise, the British side has seemed to be trapped in wishful thinking or, maybe, rather wishful guessing. This has certainly come as a surprise on both sides of the channel, but has materialised into a persistent reality.

Leaving the European Union would in any case produce numerous detrimental consequences for the British population in almost every domain and effect every field of citizens’ daily lives. Hardliners may be willing to sacrifice a lot for regaining sovereignty, but many others understand that such a step would simply deprive them of economic and personal advantages and take them back into the past, instead of securing a prosperous future. In the face of this dire scenario a discussion has evolved in the UK about the option of another, a second referendum. One of the explicitly or implicitly voiced arguments has been that the majority’s will simply has to be respected. Moreover, it is argued, it would be incompatible with Britain’s great democratic traditions to repeat a referendum until the result better fits with certain political requirements.

Having, however, a closer look at the circumstances under which the vote was cast and the very character of the question asked, it becomes evident that a second referendum would not be against Britain’s democratic culture. On the contrary, it would be highly appropriate to safeguard honest adherence to democratic values.

A fair and valid vote requires well informed voters. As a matter of fact, before the referendum there was a great deal of impertinent, invalid and simply untruthful arguments and disinformation on the side of the leave-campaign, including highly doubtful influence by Russia via social networks. Even prominent standard bearers of the leave-activists have admitted that their campaign was at least partially based on wrongful information and arguments. In addition – and this is even more important – the implications of the UK leaving the EU are extremely complex and were hard to assess at that time, even for experts. There has never existed a political construct like the European Union and no Member State has ever left it. Hence, there is no experience on such a step. And the interdependence of the EU’s Member States is not only intense, but also extremely complex. Therefore, hardly anybody including those standard bearers, let alone the average voters, had a realistic and substantial idea of the issue at stake.

Secondly, a legally valid decision needs to be specific. Notwithstanding the wording of the question to decide on, it is reasonable to argue that the contents behind it were lacking the necessary specific quality. Given the above mentioned complexity of the issue it is obvious that there is not the one ‘Brexit’. Rather there would be a wide range of options to design such a step. Hardliners may certainly prefer to leave without any deal, but this scenario has neither been the focus of the British government nor of the majority of the British political functionaries at any time. And it would be a fairly bold assumption, that a no-deal scenario was, in fact, the goal of the 51,89 % leave-voters at the referendum. Offering the alternatives of leaving or remaining was as clear and specific as asking, do you want a tax reform or don’t you. If there was a majority for a tax reform, this would be a mandate to work on the issue, but would neither legitimize a tax reform in favour of the rich, nor one in favour of the poor, nor any concrete tax reform. Similarly, the result of the referendum was a mandate to prepare an exit, to negotiate, but did not authorize any specific result.

Clearly, thence, another referendum would not be a disregard of democratic principles, but be absolutely in line with the profound democratic culture that has been cultivated in the United Kingdom. Such a referendum would, however, have to ask for a decision on a concrete Brexit scenario, of what kind ever, and be based on objective, clear and comprehensive information provided to voters. So, one might only hope that the essentially European United Kingdom – a country, which is currently stuck in a controversy between those who seek the future in the past and those who have understood that the future is always distinct and challenging – will have the courage as well as the appreciation for her own fate to pave the way for an informed and specific choice.

The White Paper presented by the EU Commission in March 2017 contains a comprehensive description of global perspectives followed by five alternative scenarios for the European Union’s future until 2025.

The consequences of scenario 1 “Carrying on” are quite foreseeable. Following the path of the past without major changes of direction would deliver more positive results for the citizens. However, the frequently poor efficiency due to national egocentrism is likely to be an increasing burden on solidarity and cohesion. This could result in a situation in which carrying on is not an option anymore, because internal tensions and a lack of support for the European Union by the citizens might provoke disruptive changes.

Scenario 2 “Nothing but the single market” is simply unrealistic. It describes a European scenario which reduces the immense achievements of European integration to a very limited cooperation in the field of trade. This would imply an amount of disregard for its performance and the value of benefits for the citizens which would not match the understanding of the European Union’s role internally and globally, even in circles of EU-skepticism except for hardliners and poorly informed individuals. Therefore, option 2 cannot be expected to find the necessary support.

The third scenario “Those who want more do more” points to a path which might be a realistic way to overcome slow progress, growing tensions and a loss of momentum. Closer cooperation between member states which are willing to do so should be possible and would, if successful, suggest that others follow. As a matter of fact, the existence of the Euro is – despite of some conceptual deficiencies – an excellent proof that a coalition of the willing is well possible. These clusters of progress could give member states and their citizens the free space they want to adapt the EU to some extent to their needs. The result would be a higher acceptance by the citizens as well as less tensions between distinct national mindsets and interests. However, such developments would have to be well designed in order to secure proper functioning and avoid undue fragmentation.

Scenario 4 “Doing less more efficiently” casts doubts on its viability only by the wording of its title. Reducing the field of activities might be possible, but it is unlikely that this could be transformed into higher efficiency. If tasks were reduced, resources would be reduced as well. So, if an increase of efficiency is possible, it does not require a cutback in competencies. Such a development might to some extent silence criticism in the short term, but would not live up to the ever growing number of challenges in a globalizing world that need to be tackled jointly. Hence, this option will not provide stable perspectives in the medium and long term. Moreover, it would hardly cultivate the common European spirit, which is the fundament of solidarity and cooperation in the long run.

Finally, there is scenario 5 “Doing much more together”. This would be the option of choice for those who support ever closer cooperation and integration. Given the facts that are provided in section 2 of the White Paper – like the EU’s shrinking share of global GDP, Europe’s falling share of world population, highest median age of Europeans worldwide and the growing challenges in terms of security – it is imperative to follow clearly and decisively this European road of cooperation and integration in the future. No need to say that the urgency of environmental protection calls for cooperation which allows to acting as a credible global player in this respect. The question is, however, if this scenario is a realistic perspective, an attainable goal?

For the time being, it seems to be difficult, but it is without any doubt possible to get there. What it takes is the support of those who have the ultimate say in a democratic society – the citizens. And indeed, there are good reasons to provide this support. Although there are certainly differences in various respects, the quality of life within the EU – especially taking into account social and health care standards, infrastructure and the inimitable space of peace, freedom and prosperity it provides – is as high as hardly anywhere in the world. This adds to a unique cultural diversity. Altogether these characteristics constitute the European spirit, the feeling of being European.

This European project of overcoming confrontation and replacing it by cooperation is in this dimension unseen on the planet. It has delivered, the achievements are obvious and abound. The statement may sound unhumble, but Europe has been put once again in the forefront of human development. Overcoming war and confrontation has always been a dream. Making this dream a reality has been difficult and the way has neither been easy nor perfect. But by now, there have been many decades of this reality.

To build something new, something old needs to be replaced. This means losing a familiar environment, change, the need for adaptation. It is human that there is caution, sometimes reluctance or change is regarded as too fast. But the project has worked and needs to succeed in the future to secure this European quality and style of living. However, it will only succeed, if the citizens support it. And the citizens will only support it, if they are aware of the achievements and challenges.

People in other regions of the world have usually substantial appreciation for the success of European cooperation and integration. It is frequently seen as an example of what is attainable, being a source of hope. Within the European Union there is unfortunately a widespread lack of knowledge and understanding concerning the EU’s functioning and achievements resulting in Euro-skepticism. Criticism is a driver for progress, but it has to be an informed one.

This is why the most urgent task with respect to the European Union’s future is to convince the citizens that following the path of integration is the best way to take care of their interests. May it be scenario 3, may it be scenario 5 or something in between. The reasonable choice is certainly more solidarity, more cooperation and more integration.

After a heated public debate coined rather by emotional than rational arguments, the majority of the British voted on the 23rd of June for leaving the European Union. They did so in a referendum which is not of binding character. Now it is up to U.K.’s government to trigger the so called Article 50 TEU (introduced by the Lisbon Treaty) procedure by a notification to the European Council, declaring the intention to withdraw from the European Union. From the date of the notification, the withdrawal would take effect in two years at the latest, unless the European Council and the U.K. agreed on extending this period.

The decision to present this notification has to be taken according to the United Kingdom’s constitutional requirements and is undoubtedly a national issue. Of course, EU institutions as well as other member states are affected by the outcome of this referendum, but those responsible on the political level should remind themselves of the fact that as long as such a decision has not been notified it simply does not bear legal consequences.

The discussion prior to the referendum was highly controversial and frequently misleading. Information was mixed with disinformation and those pushing for withdrawal employed national pride in ruthless ways.

Now, that the result is on the table, the haze is abating and reality is getting in sight. Economic perspectives turn out to be bleak, Scotland is heading for independence and Northern Ireland may defect as well. If news of the beginning of a “leave” of big banks should spread in the coming weeks, a rather uncomfortable picture of the future will materialize. And many of those who opted for unrestricted national sovereignty are likely to rethink their decision.

In such a scenario, what reasons should the government of the U.K. have to go hastily for triggering the Article 50 procedure and imposing thereby a deadline for negotiating the disentanglement on itself. No doubt, a referendum calls for respect, even more so in country which is proud of her great democratic culture. But a non-binding referendum will not withstand a changed public opinion that may be reality in a few months time. And as complicated as the British political landscape has become, who knows what ideas a new government might present and what result general elections will bring. Hence, it would – except for the most fanatic advocates of the leave campaign – be obviously unwise to trigger this procedure quickly or even any time soon.

And for the same reason it is politically unwise, if policy makers of the EU or other member states press the U.K. for notifying the withdrawal as soon as possible, as it happened unfortunately. They should rather set aside their disappointment and frustration about the majoritarian will of the British people in this referendum and act rationally, sober and in the interest of the European Union, as they can be expected to do. If the result of the referendum should lead to a notification of withdrawal, this has to be respected, but it is not the EU’s task, let alone in its interest, to build up pressure, to take such a step. No need for hurry, let them sort that out! And there is a good chance, that the Brexit will never come true.

The assumption that pushy behavior would deter member states in the future from considering leaving the Union is simplistic and short-sighted. Of course, negotiations can only begin after such notification. But instead of emanating a retaliating attitude, EU policy makers should focus on making the European Union too attractive to leave. Or, to be more specific, explain to the citizens successfully that it is too attractive to leave.

The European Union has a problem. True, it has even many problems. But the centrally damaging deficit is its lacking competency to take its products to the “market”. Conveying its political achievements to the citizens is what it takes to avoid withdrawals of member states. The European Union has delivered and will do so in the future, but it has failed to win the enthusiasm of the citizens. To do this is urgent, and this is what policy makers have to press for. Certainly, in this sense, there is need for hurry!

The European Union is – by any standards and even for someone with a stubbornly optimistic view – in considerable turbulence. The economic crisis, the social crisis, the Euro crisis, the refugee crisis, the identity crisis, just to mention the most striking ones, have shaken this political organization in many ways and affected member states differently, nevertheless with respect to the whole project profoundly.

When Jean Monnet said that “The crises are the great unifiers!”, he was certainly right on principle. Still, right now one might increasingly worry if the challenges can be dealt with successfully anytime soon. To fix the concrete problems will take a complex variety of measures on the political level, endurance and time. To avoid the occurrence of new problems, however, needs serious attention as well.

Investigating the nature of the crises, one must distinguish between, on one hand, problems which appear throughout the EU, albeit maybe with distinct intensity and urgency, and, on the other hand, scenarios in which one or few member states get into trouble affecting subsequently the rest of the EU. Of course, both types can develop in an intertwined way.

In the following the focus will be on situations in which the problems of one or a few member states require adequate response. One of the pillars the European Union is built upon is undoubtedly solidarity. It is about the very substance of a community that there is the willingness to give the necessary support to members in case they should get into trouble. This willingness, however, will depend on the degree of coherence within the community, the ability to provide support and the perception of the causes of the difficulties, as well as the support requesting member’s crisis management. Among these the reason for facing the problem and the responsibility for its causes seem to be particularly relevant.

As it would be the case in a group of individuals pursuing a demanding project, the willingness to support one individual being in trouble will be determined by the degree of danger of the individual’s failure to the common project’s success and the perception of the individual’s responsibility with respect to the occurrence of the problem. If the consequences of failure are considered as serious for the whole community, there will be a high amount of solidarity. Equally, if one individual is regarded to bear only little or no responsibility for being in the challenging situation there will be commitment to provide support. On the contrary, the willingness to show solidarity will be low, if the potential outcome does not matter substantially for the rest of the community or the perceived degree of responsibility for being in trouble is high.

Hence, with respect to current crises of the European Union it can be seen that the disastrous condition of Greece’s economy and the country’s need for support was met with decisive solidarity, although the causes for its economic crisis were widely regarded as “homemade”. The solidarity, then, came at a price. Strict conditions linked to the support hit the country in various ways.

In the case of the current refugee crisis Germany’s urgent request, backed clearly by the EU, to relocate refugees from Germany to other member states, however, has so far not succeeded at all. Germany’s call for solidarity was not well received after the country had gone it alone by opening its borders to a huge influx of refugees or migrants.

These cases show that solidarity is not a one-way concept. The willingness to provide support is closely linked to the obligation to avoid the need for it. Long term economic “laissez-faire” policy in one case is just as little well received in the common destiny of the European Union as is uncoordinated decision making based on the expectation to share the coming burden in the second scenario. If one member state’s action implies or produces consequences for other member states it is highly appropriate and politically wise to bear this in mind when taking action, as a matter of fact, it is imperative. Therefore, it is critical to understand that the EU is a highly integrated system, which requires respect for other members’ legitimate interests and at the same time commitment to understand and take into account the consequences of own action for others.

The degree of integration within the EU is probably much higher than many citizens and officials are aware of. And it is an evitable consequence of technological and cultural developments. The European cooperation and integration can well be understood as an ultimately inevitable “Europeanization” being part of the overall globalization process. It has brought peace, prosperity, high quality of life and it has put Europe once more in a globally unique advanced position in many respects by overcoming differences and focusing on common ground and interests. This is a big story, too big to be easy, and turbulence is inherent. Let’s keep it under control!

The death of more than one thousand people heading for the European Union by drowning in the Mediterranean Sea in two accidents last week shocked once again the European public. These shipwrecks have been two more in a long series of tragedies of this kind. In 2014 there were 300 000 detected illegal border crossings to the EU, most of them via the Mediterranean Sea. In the first 17 days of April 2015 eleven thousand refugee seekers on boats were rescued.

Political instability, social unrest, wars and poverty have led to an ever growing number of people trying to get to the safe haven European Union. They are willing to take any risk and do whatever it takes to leave their home countries, where their lives are in danger or without prospects. Whereas the former may be entitled to asylum, the latter frequently will be rejected once they have arrived in the EU. Many, however, never get there.

The challenge to tackle this problem, however, requires a rational approach. Headlines in the media and statements of politicians blaming the European Union for the ongoing catastrophes do not constitute helpful contributions to the search for improvements and solutions. The EU could have done more, should have done more and – as reactions on the political level show – will do more to save refugees and accept asylum seekers. But those responsible for the increasingly perilous or at least dire living conditions causing people to head for a safe haven are to be found in the refugees’ countries of origin. And, of course, those who overload boats with human cargo to maximize profits show breathtaking criminal energy.

A real solution to the problem may, due to the political and economic situation in the refugees’ home countries, not be attainable any time soon. What can be done by the European Union, however, needs to be based on rational considerations and – most important – solidarity among the member states. Sharing the burden of the required measures to avoid disasters of this kind in the future needs cooperation determined by the high moral standards the EU is based upon: high respect for human rights and dignity as well as a priceless appreciation of social responsibility. This has to be the guideline for solving internal problems as well as for dealing with those who seek shelter.

In January 2013, British Prime Minister David Cameron said that if elected in the 2015 General Election, a Conservative government would negotiate new agreements with the European Union and would then hold a referendum on whether to remain in or to leave the EU.

I fear that it will cause some anxiety and that there will be some uncertainty about the UK engagement in the EU – from now on.

Financially it could be affected. What about the trading relationship? Will it be possible to continue as before? The tariffs would probably be higher – it goes both ways.

The sense of security would be challenged, especially, with the crisis around us such as Ukraine and Russia. My point is that we are stronger together, and the signal we send will be more clear when we are together and with a nation like the UK participating. The sanctions will also be more effective, I assume.

If the UK went out of the EU the UK would have to show, they could do alone and possibly keep a distance to the EU.

What about Scotland and Wales if the UK were going to leave the EU?

The electoral campaign is over. The candidates had many chances to present their views, their intentions, their personalities. The media throughout Europe has never been so willing to provide a stage for the manifold events related to the European elections. The slogan “This time it’s different!” which refers to the fact that parliamentary parties had for the first time designated a candidate for the office of the president of the European Commission has transformed into reality. Yes, this electoral campaign was different. It gave the candidates the chance to reach out to the people, made the institutional Europe somehow humane and, thereby, promoted the European idea. But now, that the votes have been cast, the time of glamour and enthusiasm is over and the one big question is still to be answered. What can be done to restore the so much faded away confidence in the importance of the historic project of European cooperation and integration?

At the core of electoral debates and party programs there was high unemployment leaving especially young citizens in some of the member states without proper perspectives, problems related to intra-EU migration and immigration from outside the European Union, a sustainable energy supply concept reducing overdependence, the strengthening of democracy and transparency as well as taking care of European interests in a self-assured way on the global stage, just to mention the most important issues. There was little disagreement on the goals and some dissension on the means to achieve them. Supposedly, this coincides with the widespread views among European citizens. Who would be against a socially sensitive, prosperous and democratically well structured space without internal borders, where people have fair opportunities and excellent chances for a peaceful future?

And here is the risk. Much has been said, but what matters is, how much can be accomplished and - equally important - will be perceived as achievements of the European institutions.

The frequently mentioned and almost unanimously diagnosed crisis of confidence, which weighs on the European Union, is the result of economic hardship and disappointment by institutions which frequently seem to be out of touch with daily life and common sense. Right, the economic crisis has hit many people hard. But the European Union or the existence of the Euro was not the cause of the problem. Indeed, there has been considerable solidarity among the member states and the measures taken may be criticized, but will pay in the long term. The perceived lack of sensible action by the institutions, on the other hand, may be to the point sometimes, but has, however, become so widespread due to a very poor way of communicating properly the causes, intentions and consequences of institutional activities.

As a matter of fact, the European Union has delivered. There has been an unseen period of peace paired with freedom and prosperity. What has been missing is selling this project of truly historic dimensions to the people. From a rational point of view much has been achieved, but it has only poorly transformed into an emotional category. To meet challenges successfully, it takes rational decisions and emotional stability. Given the current crisis of confidence, the most important task for the newly elected members of the European Parliament, the President of the European Commission, the Commissioners and all those, who act on the political stage, will be to take the right decisions AND to communicate them in the best possible way. It will be crucial, to make every effort to discuss and explain legislative and executive activities widely and intensely. People need to become involved in what actually matters to them.

There we are back. The election campaign succeeded in making people involved. The election campaign replaced faceless institutions by rationally and emotionally observable candidates. And the election campaign got the appropriate support of the media. Those who have been elected need to maintain this momentum. Democracy is about winning elections, but even more so about again and again winning and securing the trust of the people. The President of the European Union has the privilege and the duty to do so.

Populist parties are on the rise in Europe. Whatever their programs may say, may they be rightist or sometimes leftist by traditional standards, they are mostly anti-European. Next year’s elections to the European Parliament will be elections on the European Parliament – and, of course, the other institutions of the European Union. The postulation, that the election campaign should not be focused on pro or contra EU, but instead on how to develop an even more integrated European cooperation is likely to turn out having been wishful thinking. Why? Well, because the member states of the European Union are democracies. And in democracies the wishes, expectations and concerns of the people count.

As a matter of fact, this European Union really has delivered. It provides a space of freedom, peace, prosperity, social security, safety, ecological responsibility, fair chances for high quality education, top health care systems and, therefore, life-quality standards, which are hardly to be found anywhere else on this planet. As big as the differences between the cultures and the development within the European Union may be, there is a common understanding, that it takes a sound balance between freedom and social responsibility to build societies, which offer best possible chances for individual self-actualization.

Still, a lot of criticism and skepticism remains. Wouldn’t all this - or even more – have been achieved without the EU as well? Without the numerous regulations, the bureaucracy and restraints to national sovereignty rooted in the EU’s various bodies? Maybe yes, but much more likely – no. More freedom of movement, more markets, more competition, more cooperation and more opportunities have provided considerable benefits, either material or immaterial. Of course, almost everything has its downsides. And many aspects are far from being perfect. However, this is, unfortunately, normal and will always remain so on earth. What counts is the willingness to cooperate and to strive for improvements.

No, the problem originates from the evolution of the European institutional cooperation and is rather of emotional character. The first steps have been made decades ago as a result of the unseen devastating forces of hatred and war. Since then, this originally very limited collaboration has developed steadily into broader cooperation leading to the present Union, which is, of course, to be seen as a work in progress. This transformation on the political level has not taken place adequately in many people’s minds. The mindsets have frequently remained rather nationally-oriented, still providing space for prejudices, narrow-mindedness and a wrong understanding of (very important) national cultural identity. There is the feeling of belonging with respect to a town or village, a region, a nation. An appropriate emotional bond on the European level, however, is missing.

The institutionalized European Union has not sufficiently – if, at all – understood, that, other than nation states, regions, towns or villages, it needs to market its very existence to the citizens. As long as the political union based on common European culture and history has not found a place in the people’s hearts it will be easy to argue against existing cooperation and in favor of national interests. Indeed, the higher the degree of integration becomes the more intense will due to prevailing nationalism the rejection of the EU get. And it seems that the extent of integration is overstraining an increasing number of people. The current economic crisis with the consequences of its stringent austerity measures on one side and financially demanding solidarity on the other side has, of course, made this identification problem even more pressing.

Given, that political and economic powerhouses like China, India, Brazil (and others are to follow) have entered the world stage, it is highly advisable for European countries to act jointly for having enough weight in the future global scenario. Standing alone even big European countries will be dwarfed by global players at least in the medium term. The shrinking population in European countries will add up to the difficult situation.

So, what? Should those, who are in favor of deepening and improving European cooperation and integration, just keep on deepening and improving the union confident that over time the success will be self-explanatory? Unfortunately, it seems, that time is running out and those, who are skeptical, might gain sufficient support to derail the whole project.

The European Union is not the barrier to peace and prosperity, no, it has provided a well-working framework for achieving these goals. It is not a doubtful dream, but a reality, that has delivered benefits in many respects. The problem is that many people have not yet developed the European mind it takes to support this process of historic dimension on the by now established level of integration and in times of economic turbulence. Populist parties exploit the potential and gain support by bringing forward simplistic arguments and offering short-sighted solutions. Those, who have understood the crucial importance the process of European cooperation and integration has, and will have even more so in the future, need to find ways to bridge this gap between political reality and the lack of emotional bonds with this very reality.

There needs to be a clear European identity as the precondition for broad identification with the European Union. Taking the EU to the market based on this identity is the big task - in the election campaign and after the upcoming elections to the European Parliament. This is the topic. And, indeed, there is a lot of good arguments for a strong union enjoying a wise balance between freedom and social responsibility – quite unique as is its rich diversity.

The question of David Cameron's approach to a new vision of Europe and Britain's place in such a construction, was the subject of heated speculation. In the end, the Prime Minister chose, at least from a political perspective, of all potential options the most reasonable one: it was clear that Conservative eurosceptics would not accept anything which would not include a referendum on Britain's EU membership.

However, it is definitely sensible and beneficial of Cameron to dismiss any precipitate referendum until a renegotiation of Britain's status within the EU and the upcoming general election, whilst making it emphatically clear that Britain would profit more from a EU membership than a withdrawal. Nonetheless, Britain does need to realise that, contrary to its own belief, its hand in a renegotiation with Brussels is not in the slightest enhanced by such a withdrawal threat.

If one looks at the mere numbers, it quickly emerges that Britain has more to lose from a withdrawal than the EU - Britain may be one of the main contributors to the EU budget (although the UK rebate has traditionally assured the UK one of the last ranks among the five main contributors), but the implications for Britain's economy and diplomatic status would by far outweigh the EU's budget calculations. The UK equally does not contribute to the European Stability Mechanism and is thus not even vital for the rescue of the eurozone.

Political apathy on the part of Britain's (current) European partners adds to these economic considerations: to put it bluntly, reactions to Cameron's speech have displayed very strongly that a great part of the other EU member states would not be very sorry at the loss of the United Kingdom considering its overall obstructionist stance on many issues and its largely unilateral and self-interested approach to the idea of European solidarity. As the Spanish Foreign Secretary, José Manuel García-Margallo expressed it: "For the EU, a British withdrawal would be bad news, but it would not stall the European locomotive in its progression."

If David Cameron believes, as many of his party's backbenchers do, that he would be capable of negotiating a special position for Britain within the European Union, he is utterly mistaking. For the sake of its own existence, the EU cannot allow individual member-states to obtain individual arrangements suiting the individual interests of these member states, indeed it would pervert the very purpose of the European Union. If Cameron intends, as his speech oftentimes suggested, to contribute to the creation of a "new" European Union, merely constituting a cooperative confederation of sovereign nation-states with a common economic sphere of interest, then he has fundamentally misunderstood the entire raison d'etre of the EU, set out by the Schuman Declaration of 1950 and reaffirmed by the creation of the European Coal and Steel Agency in 1951, which was considered as "a first step in the federation of Europe" - the road towards greater federalisation is not a deviation from Europe's original path, but the logical, evolutionary implementation of the European community's founding principles. In the light of this, Fabius's analogy of the "football club in which one cannot simply and suddenly decide to play rugby instead" is wholly correct and bears witness to the impressive British misconceptions of Europe and the shape it is supposed to assume. Cameron's vision of Europe as such is therefore not reprehensible - it merely impressively disregards the principles on which the European Union is built, revealing the extent to which Britain is detached from European realities (and not the other way around, as many British eurosceptics fancy to claim).

What will certainly occur though following the European elections of 2014 is a thorough and important reform of the European Union as a whole. It is in this context, in the service of not only the British but Europe as a whole, that David Cameron will have to prove that he is being genuine when he says that he wants a "better deal" for a "flexible and open Europe". If he is, then his speech of today was indeed the "important contribution to a democratic debate in Britain about Europe", as the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Durão Barroso qualified it. Otherwise, the European locomotive will indeed, and sadly one might say, progress without Britain. What Europe needs is a closer and more efficient union, serving the interests of a European demos, not particular member states. And it is for this that Europe will strive in the years to come.

Catalonia’s striving for independence is in no way a new political movement. Whatever point of view, it has been on the agenda of the majority of Catalonian citizens for decades. The end of the Franco-regime`s suppression of Catalonian originality was the starting point for the revival of the Catalonian culture and language. Until recently, however, independence from Spain seemed to be more a vision to foster the autonomous region`s interests than an achievable political reality in the short term.

Then, the economic crisis hit Spain heavily. Catalonia felt victimized in a double sense. Not only were Spain’s problems seen as causally related to flawed politics of the central government in Madrid, but, even more intolerable, Catalonia found itself in financially dire straits, because it had to make contributions to Spain’s finances without receiving adequate return flows. What had been reality for years became inacceptable and triggered an unprecedented wave of support for independence.

Crisis tends to reduce tolerance with respect to tensions and incites to look at problems more sensibly. What otherwise might have remained covered by a layer of indolence turns into a rapidly unfolding problem. Problems urge to take action.

However, as long as changes are based on democratic decisions, mutual respect and constructive search for solutions which are acceptable to all parties, there is no reason to be concerned on the European level. Within the European Union there should be room for peaceful change, if it is the result of the well considered and declared intention of the people. Whatever the outcome of Catalonia’s aspiration may be, it can be well accepted on the basis of European values and cooperation.

Wir leben in einer Zeit fundamentalen Wandels. Wirtschaftliche Entwicklungen in weiten Regionen der Welt haben in der jüngeren Vergangenheit eine quantitative, sowie qualitative Kräfteverschiebung auf globaler Ebene hervorgebracht. Quantitativ in Bezug auf globale demografische Strukturen – während anderswo die Bevölkerungszahlen stark wachsen, weisen diese in den Mitgliedsstaaten der Europäischen Union eine stagnierende Tendenz auf. Dies gilt insbesondere auch für Deutschland, das die niedrigste Geburtenrate in der Union hat. Qualitativ in Bezug auf wachsenden Wohlstand in anderen Regionen der Welt, insbesondere China, Indien, sowie Brasilien, sodass eine deutlich höhere wirtschaftliche, sowie politische Macht europäischen Ländern, auch den wirtschaftlich Stärksten, gegenüber steht. In dieser von neuen Einflüssen geprägten Welt veränderter realpolitischer Verhältnisse, wird es für Deutschland schwieriger, gegenüber neu erstarkenden globalen Schwergewichten, seine Interessen – wohlgemerkt, die Interessen seiner Bürger – erfolgreich wahrzunehmen.

Doch welche Interessen sind in diesem Zusammenhang von Bedeutung? In erster Linie geht es darum, die überdurchschnittlich hohen Lebensbedingungen, die in Deutschland gegeben sind, zu erhalten. Die von einem hohen Maß an Ausgewogenheit zwischen Freiheit und sozialer Verantwortung geprägte soziale, wirtschaftliche und politische Ordnung gewährleistet Chancen und Lebensqualität, die außerhalb Europas in dieser Form kaum anzutreffen sind. Religions-, Meinungs- oder Redefreiheit sind nur einige der politischen Freiheiten, die viele als selbstverständlich erachten mögen, es aber für den Großteil der Weltbevölkerung keineswegs sind. Gesellschaftliche Toleranz, die ein friedliches und sicheres Zusammenleben insbesondere auch auf der Basis von Gleichberechtigung der Geschlechter ermöglicht, ist in Deutschland durch stabile rechtsstaatliche Strukturen gesichert. Die Erhaltung wohlfahrtsstaatlicher Elemente, die für ein Mindestmaß an sozialer Gerechtigkeit und Absicherung gegen unwürdige Lebensbedingungen sorgen, ist Voraussetzung für inneren Frieden und stabiles Wachstum. Die soziale Marktwirtschaft verkörpert den Mittelweg zwischen individueller Selbstverwirklichung und maßvoller staatlicher Intervention. Ebenso ist das Bekenntnis zu respektvollem Umgang mit der Umwelt, insbesondere auch im Interesse zukünftiger Generationen, Teil politischer Kultur in Deutschland. – All dies sind Werte, deren Existenz und Erhaltung im vitalen Interesse jedes Bürgers unseres Landes liegen.

Daher gilt es, Anstrengungen zu unternehmen, die die Erhaltung und Durchsetzung dieser Interessen auf bestmögliche Weise sichern. Angesichts einer im stetigen Wandel begriffenen globalen politischen Landschaft, in der sich ein multipolares Szenario abzeichnet (USA, China, Indien, Brasilien, u.a.), haben einzelne Länder – selbst der Größe Deutschlands – nur geringe Chancen, ihre Interessen wirksam zu verfolgen. Es ist in diesem Sinne klar zum Vorteil Deutschlands, mittels Kooperation mit grundsätzlich Gleichgesinnten in einer politischen Gemeinschaft die Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten erheblich zu verbessern. Hierzu bietet die Europäische Union eine solide und zukunftsorientierte Basis. Sie bildet somit das notwendige Bindeglied zwischen einzelnen europäischen Ländern, um auf Augenhöhe mit anderen politischen Kraftzentren die Zukunft global mitbestimmen zu können.

The countries of the Euro-zone are in tremendous trouble and will remain in dire straits for the foreseeable future. Solidarity has been shown with those facing financial and economic problems, but the need for bailout money may soon exceed the capacity to provide sufficient support.

The reasons for the current crisis have been analyzed and described in the media extensively. After all, there was a lack of willingness of members of the Euro-zone to play by the rules. Respecting the “Maastricht-criteria” went out of fashion soon after introducing the common currency and flouting the rules without having to face consequences paved the way for the current disastrous situation. Secondly, the real-estate-bubble-driven overheating economies of Spain and - to some extent - Ireland could not be moderated by the means of monetary policy, which was determined by the different needs of the much bigger rest of the Euro-zone countries. Based on the banking crisis of 2008 these conceptual flaws have led the Euro to the precipice it is very close now, triggered considerable turbulence for the European Union and weighs on the economy globally.

At present, it is hard to predict, what feasible solutions can be found to overcome the crisis. What has become clear, however, is that future cooperation between countries within the European Union needs to be designed in a better way than it has been done thus far. To overcome absurd confrontation, create a space of unseen opportunities as well as safeguard and develop political systems which are based on freedom and social responsibility in a fundamentally changing world, cooperation between European countries is the right way into a peaceful and prosperous future. Notwithstanding the current deep crisis, this has been proved. The design of cooperation, however, needs to be done in a way, that takes into account existing differences: differences in culture, differences in the current willingness to integrate by handing over areas of national sovereignty and differences with respect to economic issues, like the phase of the economic cycle or the level of economic development in general terms.

The status and needs of the Northern European members of the European Union is different to those of the Southern ones, each of them being again different to those of the Eastern European countries. A future structure has to allow for differently integrated circles of cooperation and integration. Member states must, of course, not be categorized in a long term perspective, but need to have the opportunity to participate in the respective appropriate circle. Flexibility in this sense would not mean that entering and leaving a certain circle of cooperation could be decided upon short term political considerations on a year-to-year basis. And it has to be clear, that the European Union is not a “Club of Convenience”, but a political union which is based on historically defined common grounds and solidarity in a long term perspective. Still, there needs to be a structural concept which allows for individual and gradual integration. Putting together what does not really fit together will not get the support of the people, is susceptible to crisis and will not deliver the desired results.

Moreover, there have to be mechanisms, which make sure that each and every member participating in any organizational circle abides by the governing agreements. To evade respecting the rules must not be tolerated, irrespectively if a country is big and, therefore, influential or small.

There is the concept of “united in diversity” used by the organization of the European Union. It is well conceived. And it needs to be taken seriously in designing organizational structures that are adequate to reality and prepare for coping successfully with the challenges of the future.

“We’re safer [together], because in an increasingly dangerous world … “

To somebody being in favor of European integration these statements sound great. They express in a striking way the positive consequences of cooperation. Knowing that the author is the British Prime Minister David Cameron makes clear that they were hardly made referring to the European Union.

In fact, he said this recently confronting the governing Scottish National Party’s intention to hold a referendum about Scotland’s independence from the United Kingdom. The reasoning of the referendum’s supporters may be economic selfishness, national pride confused with provincialism, the right to self-determination or whatsoever. Still, David Cameron is probably right.

Unfortunately, he is lacking of this understanding when it comes to European affairs, although on this level he would definitely be right. So, in this sense one would wish to hear him and other Euro-skeptics say “I’m a Unionist head, heart and soul.” Instead of living in the past, they should wake up to the present to win the future.

The EU-summit on 8th of December in Brussels delivered what could have been expected realistically. The media’s label for the outcome ranged from success to failure. Neither is appropriate. Instead, it was a logical step forward to sustainable integration. The concept of the Euro was lacking solidity and not resistant to crisis. Of course, it had been wiser to do this step before being forced by the markets. But what has been achieved was the logical consequence of introducing the Euro a decade ago.

The warnings due to the United Kingdom’s decision not to take part in this evolution that the E.U. was now heading towards dangerous division fit very well the wave of irrationality and hysteria which has contributed significantly to the development of the current crisis. Still, they are lacking in substance. The E.U. is, of course, not a homogenous group of countries, but a union that carries considerable differences concerning socio-economic standards of its members. Post-communist countries are in many ways quite distinct to others as well as are Southern to Northern European countries. Many states form part of the Euro-zone, others do not. And the Schengen-area is not identical with the whole of the union.

This inhomogeneity may not be desirable, but it has been, and is, reality. Within the European Union there has been, and there is, room for it. If, now, the United Kingdom prefers not to participate in making further steps towards fiscal integration as a precondition for a sustainable economic and monetary policy, this is an – albeit not desirable – legitimate position. Different “circles” of integration due to existing differences are inevitable to avoid a situation, in which the country least prepared to move on determines the pace of the union’s evolution. In this sense, the E.U. will continue to be a “Club of Convenience” as a whole, but the clear majority has understood that moving beyond this concept by further integration is in the members’ very interest to successfully meeting the challenges of a globalizing, multipolar world.

From the humble beginnings out of the ashes of World War II the cooperation between very few European countries limited to the field of steel and coal production has evolved into a highly developed Union in which numerous members cooperate in an increasingly integrated way. By then, hardly anybody had the daring vision of a united Europe the way it has emerged up to now. However, it was a big step entering an unseen peaceful and economically successful period for Europe. Of course, there was no far reaching conceptual fundament on which this development would have been based. Instead, cooperation and integration were driven by concrete advantages which could be achieved by moving on the path.

Decades later after having established the Euro and the Schengen area, this Union finds itself confronted with deep crisis. A crisis which is in the first place characterized by economic problems due to debt that has been amassed irresponsibly by most of the member states, but reveals an even more substantial crisis with respect to the Union’s identity. In the early days, there could only be a purpose driven community aiming at economic benefits that would be delivered by cooperation. Behind, there was definitely a political reasoning directed at avoiding confrontation between countries, but the concrete commitment was linked to economic advantages. This model was all one could get by then and has served quite well for a long period of time.

By now, the situation is completely different. In a globalizing world it has become clear, that Europe’s weight and influence in the world is closely linked to acting as integrated and unified as possible. National feelings may persist, but what there is in common should be by far enough to agree on one policy and speaking with one voice in a much more substantial way than it has been done so far.

Due to its somehow “unplanned” evolution the European Union does not have an agreed upon identity. Neither on the level of politicians, nor on the level of citizens there has been an in-depth discussion about what this Union could be and should be. The Lisbon Treaty and other agreements intended to do something about this problem may have improved procedures and technical means of cooperation, but have contributed nothing to the feeling and understanding of many politicians and citizens alike.

What it takes to form a community that can weather the challenges of the future is a clear, strong and long-term commitment to cooperation and integration which is based on common history, common basic (albeit in itself richly diverse) culture, common values, common political systems and solidarity. Looking at the European Union as a partnership of convenience is insufficient and unacceptable. An attitude which is dependent on and determined by the advantages it delivers in the short term does no longer fit the requirements and reality. This lack of identity has emerged slowly and gone undetected for quite a long time. The problem has been there and has caused a poor or wrong understanding concerning the community leading to frustration and fostered unease or even rejection of the organization. If it is to have a sustainable and successful future, the European Union needs an immaterial identity based on well designed institutions. National egocentrism was the major disease of Europe in the past centuries. Nowadays, reasonable interests will be best taken care of in a globally important and strong European Union.

However, this understanding and commitment has to be real and serious. It has to be developed and may not be widespread in some countries and, therefore, politically, not opportune. Such an attitude may be adequate or not, but, of course, has to be respected. Moreover, it is obvious that for many reasons the state of economic development of countries within Europe is considerably different. A certain policy is only appropriate, sustainable and justifies solidarity, if those it is designed for, are characterized by the highest possible number of similarities. Considerable differences, especially in the fields of economic affairs, may urge for different policies. The concept “one size fits all” will not work and would very likely be a source of damaging forces. Thus, it is of crucial importance, that the concept of the European Union allows for a limited number of circles the members each of which share – within the wider framework of the whole organization and based on a common level of development – certain interests and goals. Within such a group it will be possible to show sufficient commitment and solidarity to achieve them.

A system, which is based on the minimum consensus and standard, thereby implying that few or even one country which does not feel ready for further integration will not work in the long term. Any club which is limited to engaging in common activities by the willingness of the least interested and committed member will lose momentum and over time perform in a poor way or fail completely. An assessment of these differences within the European Union, which is based on honesty and realism and consequently allowing these differences to transform into distinct policies for the members of each circle, is imperative.

The differences are there and facing them consciously will not do more harm to the organization than not facing them. Facing reality never does, building on a formally conceived, but misunderstood and indeed inexistent equality certainly will. The risk of the Union splitting forces due to different levels of cooperation and speeds of integration can be countered by well designed systems. The risk of splitting forces due to denying existing differences would be, of course, beyond control and might cause immense damage.

Now, it is time to face reality, to base this project of historical dimensions on a commitment to common values and to build an adequate visionary institutional structure. Move On, Europe!