Europe diary: Big birthday

22 March 2007

BBC Europe editor Mark Mardell on the contents of the Berlin Declaration to be signed at a summit this weekend, comparisons between the EU and the Roman empire, and two very different visions of the EU's future.

The diary is published every Thursday.

GERMAN PUSSYFOOTING

"In the middle of the very grand room, one of the many grand rooms in the palace, stands a glass case, containing a book of 1,144 pages. In it are both dreams and nightmares, depending who is reading the book."

The 50-year-old treaty in its glass case

I've always fancied chancing my arm as a fantasy writer but this is hard fact. For the book is the Treaty of Rome which set up the Common Market 50 years ago. This weekend the European Union will celebrate its big birthday with the Declaration of Berlin, a statement of aims and values.

As I write, the Germans are being extremely secretive and bending over backwards to produce a text of outstanding blandness. This pussyfooting speaks volumes about the lack of accord on the way forward for the European Union.

The most contentious problem is of course what it says about the constitution.

The French and Dutch referendums left the EU stunned but the Germans and many others are keen to puff air into its lungs, and have a plan for full resurrection in three months' time. The current Berlin text stresses the need for "renewing in time for the 2009 European Parliamentary elections the basis on which the European Union is built".

Although to some this is not-very-disguised code for "new constitution in two years' time", Mr Blair is likely to argue it could be referring to EU values, policies or, well, just about anything.

A NEW, IMPROVED ROME

The room where the first treaty was signed 50 years ago, the Salone dei Orazi e Curiazi in the Palazzo dei Conservatori is covered from floor to ceiling in paintings showing the slaughter, ceremony and myth surrounding the founding of Rome.

Gory paintings loomed over the treaty's signatories

From the time depicted in the paintings, Rome went on expanding for more than 1,000 years. In its meagre half century, the European Union too hasn't stopped growing and now really does cover most of Europe.

Only Iceland, Norway and Switzerland don't want to join, although of course in other nations the people may not share their governments' enthusiasm. Still, not even the most ardent proponents of an ever-expanding EU suggest it will grow as large as the Roman Empire. And not even its biggest fans predict a millennium-long future.

Rome of course spread across Europe (including the coast of present day Turkey) North Africa and the Middle East by conquest. The EU's fans argue its most fundamental achievement is making sure World Wars I and II didn't spawn a third.

The Declaration of Berlin will talk about how the EU has overcome "the ravages of war". There's no doubt this was the most important reason that the European Community was set up, building on the earlier Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).

As the one of the brains behind this earlier project, French foreign minister Robert Schuman declared "any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible". War between member states of the European Union is certainly unthinkable, but would it have been otherwise if there had never been any such organisation?

RUHR ROOTS

And was the formation of the European Union, or something pretty much like it, inevitable?

Certainly the Ruhr International Authority, set up in 1948, to run Germany's industrial heartland was a forerunner of sorts. The authority, headed up by a Belgian professor, involved five of the six countries that went on to create the ECSC and then the EEC: Germany, France, Luxembourg the Netherlands and Belgium.

The difference was that the UK and USA were also in on this first act. The founding document is quite explicit: "If operated wisely, the Ruhr authority may be regarded as a further contributory step towards a more intimate economic association among the countries of Europe".

GLOBALITY

All these years later, the big question is still how much more intimate that relationship is going to get. The coming few months will not feature the pointy bits of metal and piled up bodies that feature so prominently in the Orazi e Curiazi room, but tempers are already beginning to rise.

The Berlin Declaration will make much of the EU as a "global player" and its role in countering "global threats". Sometimes its seems "globalisation" is a word stuck in front of anything to make it sound a bit grander and a bit more important, when so often it's a load of, well, globes.

But there's no doubt that globalisation gives impetus to the debate about how the European Union should evolve. It is not in the nature of the European Union or public policy makers to argue that things are basically all right as they are and nothing much needs to change.

GLOBAL VISIONARIES

I've been reading two very different visions of the way the European Union should develop by people who've spent a long time at the centre of British politics.

Peter Mandelson: New rules are necessary

EU Trade Commissioner and former cabinet minister Peter Mandelson argues in The European Union in a Global Age for more action at an EU level. And a new outfit, Global Vision, headed by Lord Blackwell, who was head of the Downing street policy unit in John Major's day, is campaigning in the politest possible terms for Britain to not only leave but break the EU.

Mr Mandelson argues that it's not a matter of salvaging the old constitution but a matter of practical and political reality that the EU needs new rules to function effectively. He argues that there is a real need for at least four specific changes:

• A single person to represent the EU abroad, although he doesn't use the phrase "foreign minister"
• An elected president to run meetings of the council (the meetings of nation states), instead of countries getting a go for six months at a time
• A new voting system for the nation states, to fairly reflect their size
• More qualified majority voting, particularly over police and criminal matters

He also talks, in much vaguer terms, of a smaller European Commission, and more democracy.

This is, of course, what many would see as the guts of the old constitution and is pretty close to Nicolas Sarkozy's demand for a mini-treaty. Although ministers might baulk at point four, I suspect it may also be close to what the UK government thinks is necessary.

Global Vision, on the other hand, argues that Britain should threaten to veto any new treaty based on the constitution. The British government should use this threat of spoiling the party to demand the right to set up a "European Commonwealth".

This could include countries like Turkey, which may never become a full member of the EU, and others who don't want a constitution. This would be a free trade area very much modelled on the current Swiss relationship with the EU, and could include co-operation on the environment, free movement of people and transport.

It would of course be a profound change, and a lot for any government bite on. But it's what many Conservatives hope David Cameron will end up adopting.

FREE BEER

But before battle commences at British or European level, the EU is having pause for a party. In Brussels there will be a concert featuring Lordi, the Corrs and Demis Roussos. Rome is organising a display of art chosen by European heads of state including Rodin's the thinker (Chirac) and a Turner (The Queen). In London there is a Saturday afternoon of seminars at the foreign office and debates with "philosophers, artists and thinkers" at "cultural centres". In Berlin there will be 27 DJs, 27 bands, and free sausages and beer. Guess where I'll be.

Please use the post form below to comment on any of the issues raised in the diary.

---

Some people are so anti-European that they can't even acknowledge the benefits the EU has brought. For example, it is correct to say that the EU stopped wars in Europe. After centuries of fighting each other, some European countries decided to share the resources required for war in order to put a stop to all this through the European Coal and Steel Community, which preceded the EEC and now the EU. It was this and not NATO that was designed to prevent further wars between France, Germany, Britain and others. Since then the EU has brought huge benefits to the people of Europe, including free trade. However Eurosceptics who seem to know or understand little about the EU won't acknowledge this but readily point to the EU's quality standards for bananas. These were necessary for free trade within the EU, but perhaps Eurosceptics don't like free trade, or bananas!
David, Dublin, Ireland

If only the other EU nations would gang together & kick Britain out. Not only would most ofthe EU's "problems" be solved, but most of Britain's problems would be solved too. I long for the day when we finally get the chance to say "NO" in a referendum to this dangerous, discredited, undemocratic organisation.
George, London, England

I think the EU should revert to being an economic union and leave the political aspirations alone. It is too big, too unrepresentative of the peoples of Europe and will one day, hopefully, implode spontaneously.
Clive Cunningham,

Europe is a great ideal for The Continent. We should be proud to have a close relationship with it. If we want to be in it then we should come up with a full proposal as to how it should be formed and what the constitution should be for a world class business and political entity. More action and less talk, please.
Guy Stacpoole, Petersfield, Hampshire, England.

I believe the UK should have been part of the EU right from the start. Then it would have been a much better organization than it is now. But Britains place is at the heart of Europe and we should move away from US influence on our policies and build a stronger europe for all Europeans.
Tom Brecht, Romford England

The EU should move forward in my opinion, but any constitution must be ratified in a proper democratic manner. Each member state should take a vote, rather than having their governments decide on the peoples behalf. The tone must be set accordingly from the start. As far as the UK is concerned - I say put up or shut up. Either they want to be a part of it or they don't, and should be removed entirely. The sooner this happens (either way, in or out), the sooner we can move on and try to give European people a better standard of life right across the board. The Irish people have benefitted greatly in recent years compared to our troubled past, and now we are starting to see this happen in some of the eastern nations. We are all equal and all deserve a good life, so I'd like to extend this to all European peoples (UK included but only on the same terms as everyone else).
Don, Dublin, Europe

The problem is there is no will among the ordinary citizens of the EU to follow the dreams of the politicians. They don't want this bureaucratic, political, 'united states of Europe' idea and the more it is miss-sold and done by the back door the more likely it is all going to end in tears. Just look at the Independent newspaper's '50 reasons to love the EU'. It is crazy to push such rubbish. 'EU has stopped wars'? Perhaps NATO had something to do with this? 'Brought democracy to Eastern Europe'? Some how I think Ronald Reagan and the fall of Communism had something to do with that. 'You can still sell a bent banana in the EU'. Well not if you want to call it a 'class I' banana (see regulation 2257/94) same with cucumbers (re 1677/88 which must be 'practically straight (maximum height of the arc: 10 mm per 10 cm of the length of cucumber)').. Can't the politicians see the 50th birthday of the EU is not something to be proud of?
Michael , Romsey, Hampshire

I would disagree that visionaries don't see the EU being as big as the Roman Empire - see this weeks Economist which forsees Russia and Morocco joining. I feel the key thing is to focus more on understandable goals that people can support - defend the record of expansion, highlight the economic growth of the EU's more dynamic members (the UK included) and simplify the documents. a constitution of hundreds of pages that was clearly a special interests charter was and is never going to succeed - write a focused document that lays out general principles and let legislators and judges apply it to circumstances as they change. Finally, electorates must push national politicians to stop blaming the EU for all their countries' ills - After all, the council of ministers (ie national governments) get the final say.
Gareth Price-Jones, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Almost every specific complaint I have heard about the EU is alleviated (if not entirely solved) by the proposed constitution - things like "lack of democracy" "overbureaucracy" "indecisiveness", etc. . I think the only reason people are afraid of it is that it makes the EU sound too much like a country - which I personally don't have a problem with (I'm primarily European and I think nation states are getting outdated) but I see how others might. Look beyond the name and read the content!
Tivadar, Bremen, Germany

How can a united Europe work. It never has done look at the past empires that were built in Europe they all fell. Even in the UK the union of the Kingdoms is gradually devolving Scotland Norther Ireland and Wales, having their own parliments & policy. Scotland wants to leave the UK and join the Euro zone so my question is how long would it be before the Scotts then decide that Europe isn't for them either?
Mark, Bristol, England

For once, I don't agree with you, Mark. It is wise to draft the Berlin declaration without a public debate. "Drafting by committee" never produces anything interesting. It's the recipe for blandness. And how could you ever arrive at a meaningful text if you had to involve people like the Czech President who yesterday called the climate change debate a communist plot. I also have problems with your reference to British "EU visionaries". It's a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it? Britons have been very poor in grasping the EU "idea" and seem to be stuck in their "us and them" theme. UK politicians always emphasise what the UK got out of Europe, when the real question has to be: What can the UK (or any other Member State) do for Europe?
Ronald Vopel, Brussels, Belgium

While I think it is useful to prick the tendency of some Eurocrats to use bloated language and make extreme claims for the benefits of the EU, I also get a little tired of what is a regular and distinctly British smugness about Europe. Sure it is far from perfect, but it is undeniable that the EU has made a major contribution to preventing war and surely that is an accomplishment of great importance. The EU has also extended democratic practice to eastern European states as the price of their joining the EU. Isn't that also valuable? As for all the scoffing about ceremony? Doesn't Britain have, enjoy and "need" ceremony too? I don't think the present article offends too much in these ways, but so many do. Why can't you be a little more positive about the EU? Even if you don't want to be part of it, you could at least acknowledge its very real achievements.
joe, Melbourne Australia

The majority of the people of the EU have ratified the constitution. We should press forward as rapidly as possible with that leaving the option of the peoples who do not wish to join the new Europe to form their associated commonwealth or free trade Area.
Tony Bosten, Amsterdam Netherlands

This is the first time Turkey was not invited as a candidate country to an event that has such an importance. Obviously this is partly to a response to the realization of the fact that the first trial of the constitution failed partly by the "threat" of the possible membership of Turkey. I guess this opens up a new question. Will Europe will ever be a contemporary entity with no hang ups on the crusader darkness of the middle ages?
Ahmet Tekircan, Istanbul, Turkey

Since Queen Elizabeth I Britain has kept its power by dividing the opposotion and then forcing it's will. Tony Blair is doing the same. He wants all the benefits for the British buisnessmen but he does not want any ties attached. This is called divide and rule. Britain sjould be kicked from the EU and most of the European Union's trouble would be over.
Marc Curmi, Malta

I used to be really against joining the Union, but as I have gotten older and it's been there in the background I've come to think that perhaps we should join the party that seems to be going on over the water. I really dont mind now if we join the Euro either. I think thats Tony Blairs plans, don't talk about it, just let everyone know it's there and eventually people will forget were not fully signed up, and will get us committed by the rest of us being lax
gobadine, tavistock

We have been sold down the river for the rich people. Heath is a traitor to this country.
Bernie Prior, Thetford

The majority of the people in the EU have NOT ratified the constitution. In many cases, their governments have, against their wishes and without allowing them a voice in the matter. The EU will ultimately fail if it does not become a truly democratic institution. A so-called "representative democracy" is only democratic to the extent that it is truly representative.
John, The Hague, Netherlands

So Lord Blackwell wants to create an EFTA inside the EU. He should remember what happened to the original that was betrayed by Britain. It;s interesting to see the British, who coined the word "club", doing everything they can to destroy the ones they create or join. If you don't like it, leave it (and enjoy having to show your passport and opening your suitcase to customs officials at every border crossing)
john s, brussels belgium

NATO kept the peace in Europe not the EU
Terry O'Brien, London

A Europe without real boarders is the way forward. Remember, please, that Westminster won't even allow independent rule of Scotland or Wales. If this is the attitude it takes at home why does anyone think it can be a fully productive member of a Union of states? It wants power, not power-sharing, and that is anathema to the EU. We're giving independence to other European countries - when will Europe stand up and demand that we give independence to the countries of UK?
Iain, Stirling, Scotland

As a devout Euro sceptic, this is one birthday I will not be celebrating. Don¿t get me wrong, if the peoples of continental Europe want ever closer political and economic union then that is what they should aim for and achieve, and good luck to them. However, Britain should have no part of this crazy adventure. A ¿European Commonwealth¿ similar to the old EEC or NAFTA might be a good thing as it could allow those countries who want to, to unite whilst accommodating those countries like Britain who do not. But the EU¿s big problem is that it is a ¿one size fits all - all or nothing¿ monster that cannot reform and that is why Britain should leave.
Paul V. Greenall, Liverpool, England

One of the fundamental problems the EU has yet to overcome is the Commission's and the EU Parliament's inability to communicate directly with the EU electorate. The virtual isolation of the EU instruments of power from the voter with all information either filtered through national governments or hidden within the mountain of paperwork jargon of the EU only confuses the EU voter or makes them switch off. It is no wonder that heads of national governments exploit the situation to further their own aims and ambitions. A new EU constitution can only be acceptable to the majority if it totally transparent in its aims, clear in its objectives and has a direct connection to "the man in the street". In other words we need to know what the EU's purpose is. It's philosophical purpose, it's structural purpose and most importantly it's purpose in serving the needs and aspirations of individual constituents. Only then can you devise the mechanisms for achieving those purposes and develop a direct connection with EU voters. Anything less and the instututions of the EU is just a hazy ill defined concept in the minds of most voters who are then at the mercy of those who need or wish to manipulate its image for their own ends.
Barrie Baldelli, Evesham, Worcestershire

I strongly agree with 'A single person to represent the EU abroad, although he doesn't use the phrase "foreign minister"' We could do with a single voice to say things like 'please stop bombing the lebanon.'
Plaid, Euro

The Union needs to go forward. There are so many people who want to do so and so many countried who ratiffied the constitution. The Dutch and the French only said No because of the Turkey issue. The only TRUE Euro-sceptics are the British. I don't understand why the even bother to join in... they only produce obstuscles and whenever there is something that would imply a more integrated Europe they want out. Make a decision lads!
Alex Iliopoulos, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

It is easy sometimes to forget that in 50 years, we, the nations of Europe, have indeed accomplished many wonderful things together. Beliving in a common future is just one of them, and, considering our past murderous divisions, this is far from being a minor thing. Those who expected a project of this nature to go without any difficulties are either naive or simply intellectually dishonest. Of course we are bound to have difficult times, not always be in agreement, have horrible fights, just like any other family. But the important thing is that we see ourselves as a family. Even the UK, always so Eurosceptic, plays an important and predictable role in the family: the one who always has to question everything, annoy the rest of the relatives, without really being able to break away from them because it is as much part of the "gang" as anybody else. And the rest of the relatives hate it and love it for that very same reason. Congratulations to all of us Europeans, for getting this far, for still being able to engage peacefully with one another, even when disagreeing, for beliving in the process, for engaging in dialogue, for bringing our fights into the open, for being just like any big, loving, and disfunctional family: engaged in making this world a better place, making mistakes, learning our lessons, moving forward step by step. Alive and kicking!
Luis Amorim, Brussels, Belgium

Since the second world war Germany has successfully played an economic rather than political role in the development of Europe, and has no foreign policy to speak of at all, it is well placed to make a declaration on the future of the EU as an internal market with a "federal" governing role. However, this is not the view of several other countries, perhaps less successful economically, but with a stronger sense of self-determination, a vision that did not work for Germany. The EU will be accepted by all in setting a unified policy on the environment, immigration, consumer rights, and a single market, but will never win the hearts and minds of its 500 million citizens by opting for the one-size-fit-you legislator model.
John, Brussels, Belgium

The arguments of many of the British eurosceptics really make me laugh. As a Union, is the UK really any better? Scotland, Wales and NI have at least some semblence of "home rule" but England has none. We have a single currency (even such that Scotland and NI are allowed to print their own banknotes) and the whole lot is governed in a building thats as far away as you can get from most of the country as possible. Add to that the unelected house of lords and unaccountable judiciary (the law lords) and add the fact that we have no written constitution and you have something that is probably much worse! I'd take the EU and a written constitution over what we have in Britain any day of the week!
Alex Bailey, Corby England

Just simply an observation. Before British people and Europeans in general can sensibly vote or comment on the future of Europe and the way it is democratically run, they need to understand about Europe's institutions. If you stopped the average British citizen in the street and asked them to define and comment on for example the roles of the European Parliment, The Council of Europe or The European Commission etc, sadly, I suggest the answers would range from poor and mis-informed to complete ignorance. We need to promote and inform all European people about the role and value of the very institutions that strife to help them, before they make an informed choice.
Mike, Swansea, South Wales

It seems to me that Global Vision's intent of intentionally breaking up the EU and its further development would be unforgiveable. Even though it only surveyed 1000 people (which is not very representative) and does not give the demographics where this was done in the UK, it concludes most UK citizens are anti European and would prefer a European Commonwealth. (did they also survey the thousands who leave on the continenet?)Statistics are easily pliable to suit every whim and prove whatever you want them to prove. I agree that globalisation is coming but it will be a globalisation of economic blocks not of individual countries, and the UK still does not have the "human" leverage of either the US, India, China or Japan. Furthermore it is stated that Europe lags behind in economic performance behind the US or China. The average growth of the EU (on the continent it varies between 2.5% (in countries like Belgium), 5% in Eastern Europe and 10% in Estonia and Latvia, quite a lot higher that the US at this moment. If they say that even the government will follow this lead then I pity the English in their splendid isolation. These economic benefits are held aloft, by not only an increase in pure trade, but by easing and streamlining regulations between countries which are founded on European unity, no more no less. Therefore a stronger European unity is a future necessity. This can be with or without the UK. It's something the English will have to work out for themselves. You hold up Churchill as the greatest Briton ever, maybe the English should act accordingly and act again with vision, and not be guided by political provincialism based on short-term electoral benefits.
Philippe Geril, Ostend, Belgium

The contributions of many commentators here suggest that the media has succeeded in polarising views of those outside the UK of the British attitude to the UK. National politicians, putting their own agendas first, have contributed to this effect. In reality the UK perspective on the EU is complex and varied; those from UK regions that have benefited may, for example, have a more positive view than many in the South East of the country who are net contributors. There is a major challenge for the democratic process when the issues are sufficiently complex that the majority of the population is unable to make a meaningful judgement and this is more readily exploited by those at the extremes. We need to understand each other better before rushing to judgment. Other Europeans might value the UK¿s undeniably different approach to some issues and other Britons might learn a thing or two from some of their continental neighbours. Politicians can serve us best by putting their party allegiances second to their duty to their constituents by helping them to understand what the real issues are.
Antony, Oxford, UK

I have been talking to my HND and Foundation Degree students at Salford University about the EU and in particular the loss of sovereignty associated with European Monetary union...we had a great debate about the pros and cons of a single currency for the UK -i was pleasantly surprised how interested they were in this topic (there are a few Catherine Tate characters in their midst!).... i am sure that the vast majority of people don't realise that the euro comes with 'one size fits all' monetary policy...which makes it difficult for governments to tweak their individual country's economy when necessary. For the record, my class did decide that in their opinion the pros outweighed the cons as far as us adopting the euro is concerned.
Jane McMillan, Salford University, UK

Coming to this late, I agree with the several critics of Britain's role (where Luis Amorim's magnanimity is reassuring) and with Barrie Badelli. The point is, why? In a sense the EU did not start with Catholic philosophers like the Robert Schuman mentioned by Mark, but half a century earlier, in Pope Leo XIII's response, Rerum Novarum, to a first-hand briefing by the English Cardinal Manning on conditions in industry. Leo spelled out the moral philosophy; people like Chesterton and Belloc in England, Maritain and Schuman in France and Adeneur in Germany tried to give it concrete form. In 1931 Pius XI coined the words "subsidiarity" and "solidarity" to clarify the principles. The original EC was subsidiarist in that it operated by agreement rather than command; by 1956 American professor F L Schuman's "Commonwealth of Man" was already seeing the US promoting a union; de Gaulle rightly stopped Britain speaking for them. Barrie is right; a constitution needs to spell out political principles, not enforcable laws.
Dave Taylor, Malvern, England

50 years on, the EU has a lot to be proud of: the social and economic benefits of the principle of free movement are clear, as are the benefits of the internal market. The much maligned 'bureaucracy' has succeeded in vastly improving social and environmental standards in many Member States. The UK has benefitted as much as anybody but if blinkered UK eurosceptics want out, that is their perogative. However, I don't think you can just opt out of everything but the internal market - being a member of the club entails respecting the same laws: a level playing field. You should choose. The Constitution is an excellent basis for adapting the EU to the current realities in every sense apart for the name. Giving it such a grandiose title meant it was always going to be a tough sell. I would have defended it in my country but I think the time has come to be realistic and agree a slimmed-down version, including the key institutional reforms.
Riccardo, Dublin, Ireland

If you are a member and wish to stay, think positively, be productive all the way. I you dont like it, just LEAVE. Simple.
Chris Junior, Nicosia, Cyprus

As a Brit who lives in Canada, I have a unique perspective on the question of European Unity. Without Canadian Confederation in 1867, what we now know as Canada could still possibly be a mixture of small territories, each looking after their own wants and needs, which have long since been swallowed by the then expanding U.S. Everything Canada has achieved is a direct result of confederation and working together. This is an opportunity which is now there in Europe for the taking. The E.U. has indeed stopped wars - just look at European history before its creation. Similarly, the economic and technological prosperity Europe enjoys would not have been possible. The A380 for example, the largest jet in the world could not be created by one country of Europe alone. I say its time to join further then just see how much we can accomplish when we work together.
Robert, Toronto, Canada / Cardiff, Wales

I am english and work in Augsburg, speak german and realise now just how important it is for my home country (UK) to develop according to future and current EU policy. I know that in a number of years time, the UK will not be a secure place to work, and would rather see an integration of cultures and industry in mainland Europe, where growth in manufacturing and industry is higher and much more boyant. We need to change our mentality towards the EU as a nation so that we are no longer seen as Insel Affen (Island Apes), ...I am not prepared to see my country and the children who will eventually grow up in this ever-increasing european community ridiculed, shunned, shrowded and eventually abandoned by EU progression because we are not prepared to move on and change. ...the EU constitution needs to remain, not hidden away under pressing US- UK matters of foreign and domestic policy, or removed because our government is too ´anxious´ to face the consequences for our debt-ridden economy.
Samantha, Augsburg, Germany

I quickly went through all these comments. I have to confess it is quite shocking. People, are in most cases, talking about things they don't know. Maybe they grabbed an idea from only one source or whatever. My goal here is not to blame people. Communication and explanations about the aims/goals of Europe are apparently something that is missing... But one thing we can thank the Eu for is the debates and new senses of identity it created. This is quite an important point through history. Indeed trying to understand the last two centuries of Europe without having in mind nationalism, identities and so forth is merely impossible.
Serge, Utrecht/Dijon Netherlands/France

When I read such comments as 'NATO kept the peace, not the EU', 'Heath was a traitor...' etc, I am truly saddened by the level of pompous self-delusion a significant minority of English (as opposed to British) people suffer from. By turning our backs on our neighbours and becoming over the last half century ever more reliant on the transatlantic 'special relationship', Britain has fallen to becoming THE lapdog of US interests at the very real price of British blood and sovreignty - if in doubt look up 'interoperability' and what it means for British freedom of action. The largest contributor to NATO in terms of manpower during the cold war was and remains Germany, who is now (with France) developping the EUFOR alternative. Europe is becoming a state, wake up and smell the cappucino people! You have a choice, join the party or get squashed by by the mighty Yankee lard.... England alone? Dream on.
Sebastien Turner, Paris, France

Many of the comments on the issue are extremely stereotyped, especially as regards the UK attitude to the EC. In fact, the small countries in Europe such as Belgium, Luxembourg, Portugal are the most pro-EC. Same goes for Spain. But in the larger countries, such as France, UK, Germany, there are significant numbers of Eurosceptics who fear loss of Sovereignty. In the French elections, about 20 per cent of voters will vote for anti European candidated. The most Euro-sceptic of all is Austria. As regards the Euro money, it was only narrowly voted in by French voters and those that voted for it are now regretting their decision as the price of most products has gone up since its introduction. I don't think the UK will draw any concrete benefit from the Euro, although it would suit me personally as I wouldn't have to change money. The main strenghts of Europe are those of having maintained the peace for so many years, free circulation of persons and merchandises, international health care etc etc. Globally then, the EC is a good thing but in no way can there be a united states of Europe as we all speak different languages and have have different cultures and attitudes. These must be allowed to exist " en l'état " as to try and homogenise them would be absolutely disastrous.
Nick Rhodes, PARIS FRANCE

EU and European Integration generally was based on economic principles and so far nobody can dispute the benefits arose from this movement. The problem seems to be the Social EU, including the cultural, ethical and lingual diversity which came second in the EU leaders priority. A dilemma we might face in the future,is whether we should fully accept the EU package with its laws including this social diversity while trying to 'socially integrate' and enjoying the economic benefits, or should we reject every movement since every time at least one member will feel neglected, and keep delaying the overall progress while keeping this social diversity with its potential problems which is already a problem that nobody wants to deal with?
Athanasios, Manchester, UK

Why do so many people feel threatened by European integration? I just don't get it. There's ~so much~ in it for all of us, including the British.
Felix , Munich, Germany

Is the main difference between the EU and the Roman Empire simply the way it spread -one through peace and the other through war? Perhaps it is.... The Roman Empire certainly seems (for good or bad) set standards of unified European law and order for centuries.
Trevor Batten, Manila,ph

We need an "European egoism" and I hope future generations will close the chapter "nations" (which glory is history) and open the chapter "Europe" again. Not only as a German, but also in view of the beginings, I assume that the identity of you and me is rooted much more in the region than in the nation. The nation may be only a step between region and Europe. Or Europe as the new "nation" if you like. The diversity is essential and a daily challenge, but if Europe gets united peacefully, voluntarily and successful it would be an unique achivement in history at all.
Roland Brandis, Bonn, Germany

I'm a student from Munich, Germany, and through the EU's ERASMUS program I have the great opportunity of studying in Paris. Every day I meet young people from every corner of the European Union. Britons, French, Italians, Polish, Spanish, Czechs. We can do things our parents weren't able to do. I make experiences my parents never would have thought of. Experiences which made me a better person. Which generation wants to tell me Europe is not good for us? My parents' generation? The generation who still experienced war? Something I can't even imagine?! Thank you, I prefer being a citizen of the European Union. And I'm proud of it!
DS, Paris, France

Name

Your E-mail address

Town & Country

Comments

The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide.

Terms & Conditions