Europe’s identity should be pluralism of culture, imagination in arts, excel in technology with foundation in philosophy and humanism.
That is the ideal Europe to me.

Yes it is impossible. This could mean the beginning of the end of a country’s culture and civilization. Well, actually this is happening already with Germany restricting other states’ sovereignty pretending to be the ‘leader’ of the whole of the EU. This is terribly sad and outside the initial scope of the European Community.

Yes, we have many different languages, but many of them are highly interrelated. So I don’t quite see how this should be an argument.

If we look at the early days of this community, it should be clear that common language can be secondary to common experiences. And all in Europe shared the experience of the devastation of WWII. Some on one side, some on the other. Many shared the experience of foreign occupation – some far longer than the end of the war. The Schuman declaration was born from that experience, and that of many wars before – the realisation that the vicious cycle of violence had to be broken.
Perhaps Europe was too successful in preventing internal violence so that we feel too comfortable to heed the lessons of the past. Though the example of Yugoslavia right at our doorstep should have taught us differently.

As for a cultural identity, well, there might not be a single one, but in the end, we still have widespread cultural intermingling throughout history, whether it is through the Roman Empire, the migrations e.g. of the Goths who traveled all the way from Scandinavia to the southernmost parts of Europe, as was the case with the Normans later on. None of this may have covered all of Europe, but repeated stirring still makes for a lot of common ground. We need but look at such cultural tropes as fairy tales to see how common certain key images are.

The question is not whether we have a single cultural identity – the question is whether in dealing with each other, we focus on what we have in common, or if we focus entirely of what distinguishes us from each other.

The AGENDA of EU must be towards establishing, maintaining and developing true Green Societies and Communities capable of self sustainability. The language of modern science is LIFE itself that integrates purpose of action of communities with meaning of life – sustainable growth of a healthy society free of negative drugs, cultural division based on ethical constrains and religion, segregation based on false teaching, strong education on modern toxicity, and understanding of life consequences based on behavioral science as a function of life equations delivering reality towards mutual love and respect. Europe should have unified ideology of reasons towards proper life. Unified language is not a language itself, it is rather a mind set developed through proper education using simple tools of science languages – physics and chemistry. Then it is all about identifying the true meaning of Biology and the way Green Chemistry works. At last politicians must be true life understanding “units” free of corruption and falsely imposed ideas on social development and progress.

I don’t think we need to make up one and only language for the EU. In my opinion the working languages in the EU should be English/French and then let people speak whatever language they like. However, I am for ONE Europe united but to do this the big “bosses” of the EU must immediately stop exports coming from China and other far away countries. If entrepreneurs want to dislocate let them but refuse entrance of their goods into the EU. Exports from China and other countries ex EU should not be to the detriment of the members of the EU.

A common identity cannot be imposed from above. And all EU attempts to do so have been a spectacular failure, usually even backfiring.

Ever since 2005, when France and Netherlands voted ‘no’, the politicians have been seen to go out of their way to avoid referendums at all and any price. And where they cannot be avoided, they are to be re-run until the ‘desired’ answer is produced. How is this different from the old Soviet mentality?

The Soviet Union was an attempt to impose from above a ‘common identity’ upon peoples who largely had no desire for such a thing. They more or less tolerated it until the first real opportunity to break away (1989-1991) and break away they did. It’s 15 countries now, and quite a few more nations (Abchazia, Ossetia etc…). In the EU the leaders try to do the same thing, and with similar results, while many on the surface seem to ‘tolerate’ the common identity, at the first sign of trouble many put their own nation first.

And how about for example pensions. You have a situation where for example my country Netherlands has pension fund assets totalling 130% of GDP, for the rest of the Eurozone on average this is 20-25%. Can you see why fiscal union would be a catastrophe for us?
I don’t think you’ll find more than 1% be willing to ‘share’ around, and those are the ones who can afford it. The lower middle class and lower incomes, who did not profit from the Euro at all, you will find no such ‘European’ solidarity. It simply does not exist.

And of course, wealth cannot be aggregated at the highest level, and the more you ‘integrate’, the more wealth in the long run will become a weighted average. In other words, you are asking Germany and Netherlands to structurally surrender 20% of our wealth, and then you are amazed that ordinary people here are opposed to that. Yes you hear a lot from certain countries that they’d be in favor of it, but of course those tend to be the countries that stand to profit. I’d say that when it comes to budget, net recipients should have the weight of their votes reduced so they cannot outvote the net contributors.

And there is another problem. In order to have ‘democracy’ you need a ‘demos’, the very definition of democracy requires it. And like in the old Soviet Union, in the EU such a thing does not exist. The ‘demos’ are on the national level. And where there is no ‘demos’, by definition there is not nor can there be democracy. This is exactly why the socalled ‘democratic’ deficit has actually gotten worse ever since elections were introduced for the EP Parliament. Now the EP is neither a real parliament nor actually democratic since it does not represent a single ‘demos’. No amount of grand pre-ambles in treaties can cover that fact up that it is not democratic that one nation can have laws and rules imposed upon itself where its populace might well be unanimously opposed to.

And for those who believe that its the older generations who tend to oppose it more, they could not be more wrong. Back in 2005 in our ‘no’ referendum here in Netherlands, the 55+ age group was the only one that voted in favor, the 18-29 group was the most overwhelmingly opposed. Same was true in France, and later for ‘Lisbon’ in Ireland. My generation does not have the war trauma, nor do we see the need to slowly abolish democracy in order to have cooperation. Whatever was wrong with the EEC anyway?

EUROPEAN IDENTITY, BRIEFLY
1. A human being is a social being (a society is 2 people minimum, if they develop mutual trust and a common belief system)
2. A human being satisfies his or her social desire in many societies simultaneously (groups), like families , circles of friends, interest associations, local communities, the village or town, the region, the nation, religion etc.
Each of the groups develops a social (group) identity (shared purposes, elements of typical behaviour, shared ceremonies, artifacts from folklore and culture, komunajn celojn, elementojn de samtipa konduto, komunajn ceremoniojn, folkloraĵojn kaj kulturon, they elect their leaders…)
3. An individual in his or her life leaves old groups and joins new ones (people leave the family they were born into and forms their own or several of their own, people leave one town and move to another and they change the locality to which they belong, or even their religion or country – sometimes because we move, sometimes because it is taken from us (for example after wars …)
4. People don’t lose the characteristics of the group which they left (after founding one’s own family one doesn’t lose membership of the family of one’s birth, after leaving one’s homeland and a gradual acceptance of the new country one doesn’t forget the old country…) although the degree of belonging gets somewhat weaker.
5. From this it follows that it is normal to add new identities to those already existing, as is for example European identity. When one takes a new identity one doesn’t wipe out the old ones (e.g. The identity of one’s homeland, or region, or religion etc)
6. The main sign of one’s identity is language (if we accept that each variation of a language or dialect is a separate linguistic system). For example in a public place we would speak the national language, in our village we speak the regional or local dialect, in a street gang we speak the gang’s slang, in the family we speak the family’s variety of the local dialect, with a small child we speak a variety of a child’s language, with a handicapped child we speak a language adapted to the child’s ability to understand etc)
7. A language has two equally important basic roles: that of communication and that of giving identity. When these two functions are in conflict, the role of identity is the more important (we often intentionally speak our minority language, even though we know that we are not understood, because the aim isn’t to communicate but to display our alligiance.
8. A new identity inevitably makes an identifying language necessary, a language which is different from all other languages because it must be neutral. This language is the sign of belonging to the new (European) identity. This language must accept emotionally (not only rationally) those who belong to the new community as its own; they must have and emotional relationship with it. And that is possible only if for all members of the new community it is the same, but different from all other communities. In regard to the European langugage English cannot become the language of identity, even though works as a language of communication, and it cannot contribute to the development of a European identity, because the European identity language must be neutral in relation to all members (the English AND THE SCOTS AND THE WELSH and the Irish have no right of priviledge) and it must necessarily be different from the indentifying language of the USA, so that Europeans may be proud of their values, and that they can show their pride in their membership by speaking their own and not an American language. Of course, the language of identity will take on the job of the communication language.
9. A neutral language can be acquired in three possible ways:
a) choosing a national language which belongs to none of the peoples who have joined the new community, e.g. Arabic. This solution was chosen in ex-colonial countries, like English in India or Nigeria, French in some African countries etc.
b) choosing one of the dead languages, which could be revived and on whose base European culture grew historically, like Latin or Ancient Greek. This solution was chosen by the Israelis when they renewed and “revived” the dead Hebrew language.
c) choosing one of the new romance languages which were initiated by linguists or by Movements like Esperanto, (which has developed a unique culture and linguistic treasury during its history of over 120 years). This type of solution was chosen in Indonesia and in several other polynesian countries (Bahasa Indonesian is a language based on a Malaysian langiage whose grammar linguists developed in the middle of the 1950’s in a regular and planned way, and is now used by more than 200 million people ).
The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were unaware of the role of language in identity, and they tried to develop a Soviet Yugoslavian language using the language of the largest population; it did work as a language of communication but could not be accepted as a language of communal identity, because it wasn’t neutral. For this reason they failed to develop a communal identity. In a time of crisis this was decisive and fundamentally influenced the collapse of these multi-ethnic states. Without a solution to this problem the European Union will fall apart whenever the first large scale economic or political crisis occurs.
Zlatko Tišljar

European identity is a fact, think about! When you think of Africa, America’s or Asia you have in mind their cultural characteristic, you don’t mind the languages people talk.

So, we all are europeans no matter the language we talk, except one people that doesn’t belong here… the gipsies. That’s one problem that EU authorities will have to deal with as they have a different culture and a way of life that doesn’t match ours. I’m not a rasiast, it is a fact that the gipsies refuse education and work, even their leaders agree.

Having been quoted so heavily in the featured article I feel obliged to respond to Mr Orban.
I must also take the opportunity to correct Penelope Vos who seems to be attributing words to Nikolai (which I assume is me) that I have never said over issues over language I have never mentioned let alone inferred.
The issue of a common language is no more likely to provide a European identity than the single market, Euro currency or EU Membership has.
I live in Ukraine where Russian and Ukrainian are spoken equally (not to mention Moldavian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Crimean Tartar etc in much smaller numbers) however when Ukraine is doing something as Ukraine, Euro 2012 football for example, regardless of language spoken the population become 100% Ukrainian.
The Swiss have no problem identifying themselves as Swiss regardless of whether they speak German, French, Italian or Romansh.
Identity revolves around a single issue of the “self” and “other” and language is but one thread in an identity. Culture, history et al all have equal parts to play in forming an identity.
Broad statements about human rights, democracy, rule of law etc do not distinguish a European identity from the same broad statements made by Americans, Australians, those from New Zealand and countless other nations far from Europe.
The issue is that the EU is a supra-structure and not a sovereign nation. The default position for the majority of the EU’s population is a sovereign national identity. People will say they are German or French or Polish or Latvian but will very rarely say they are “European” instead when talking to those who are not from Europe.
To look at the USSR which was another supra structure, and I live in a former Soviet state and have done so for a very long time, if you ask the majority of people here what their identity was during the times of the USSR, it was still Russian, Ukrainian or Belorussian. They hardly ever called themselves a citizen of the USSR. The default position was that of nationality and not all encompassing supra structure that sat above.
After 70 years of Soviet citizenship, people still identified with their sovereign state and not the USSR. Only those from outside used such a collective label.
We see this now in the US press where “the Europeans” are commented upon frequently and yet “the Europeans” do not identify with that label. They identify with Germany or France or Italy when you speak with them.
It is an incredibly difficult thing to impose an identity for a population that has any form of legitimacy. Imposing a collective label for the “others” does not give an automatic legitimate identity for the “self”.
The question of a European identity is a matter of legitimacy amongst the population regardless upon what foundation you want to give it, be it language, principles, morals and dogma, common policy, currency or a single market.
A label is not enough.
Unfortunately it is my view that no such common identity will be easily found that has the required legitimacy by the public and this is in no small way due to the ever more complex structures that the EU is itself becoming.
Without simple structures, common purpose, common policy (which is not reduced to the lowest common denominator to keep all 27 talking heads and component parts reasonably happy), accountability, transparency and a far greater effort to engage directly in dialogue with the hundreds of millions of people who live beneath the supra structure, then a legitimate European identity is a long way away.
It is not an impossibility and a wise man will never say never, however in the foreseeable future it is not likely to become a reality.
Whilst we may celebrate our diversity and the fact we have not resorted to blowing each other up recently (a major accomplishment all too often overlooked) we also have numerous national leaders acknowledging that multiculturalism has also failed within their sovereign nations. (Their words not mine).
If you cannot generate an identity within the strong ideological and geographical boundaries of a sovereign nation with a small number of “others”, then it becomes an incredibly difficult thing to do under the huge geographical and culturally diverse umbrella of a supra structure.

Mr Curtis, I am not sure whether it is the layout of the article that both you and Penelope Vos are struggling with but until the above comment to which you reply I have never once mentioned the subject of langauge in this discussion or this forum.
All comments relating to language in the main article are made by Mr Orman the Romanian politician and not me.
I have never once mentioned Esperanto on this forum.
There is only one quotation from me in the above feature and that is “Indeed identity is an absolute and critical issue… [but the EU is a] geographical supra-structural blob on the map with no clear ideology amongst its populous, despite what the elected and non-elected leaders may otherwise state.”
No other words are mine other than my reply to Mr Orman which sits above your comment.
To make it clear, I must also state I have never worked for any EU organ and have never been asked to do so. My comments do not represent in any shape or form any opinion from within the EU structure officially or unofficially and are purely my own thoughts.

Dear Nikolai, I am sorry to have used your name if the arguments I refuted were not yours in the first place.
As you noticed, the layout of the introduction suggested that they were.
With regard to language and identity, Reader’s Digest reported on a large-scale international poll which asked people what they thought contributed most to their national identity. Australians most often answer “shared values” apparently (my mind boggles at what those might be) as did several other countries, the other leading answer was “language”. I can’t remember all on the list but Germany was certainly on it. Religion was not the first choice of any country.
So, while it is quite true, as you say, that Switzerland and other countries can have a strong national identity without a common language, that does not mean that a common language, when you have one, would not be a valued unifier.
In fact, I think it would be fair to say that Switzerland has so many other reasons to know what it is to be Swiss (neutrality, banks, mountains, national service, chocolate, even it’s 4-way language policy) that it does not need the unifying effect of a common language. Europe does. Because its cultures are so diverse and because of it’s history of wars and resentments (see comments about gypsies above), Europe is unlikely to develop a strong identity without a clear symbolic act like the adoption of an “equally everyone’s” language to level the playing field and herald a new era.
Maybe that’s unlikely, and maybe it doesn’t matter whether Europe does, or doesn’t have a common identity. As an Australian, I don’t really care but I would love to see Europe show the World that it can make a choice that is fair for all it’s people.

English is a very easy language to learn..I had no difficulties whatsoever…And Italian…so if we are looking for an “easy” language, them will do…

The reason I said 100 years to allow for all living EU citizens to speak language “x” is that there will be vast numbers who will not learn another language simply because the EU adopts it as the language of the EU.
People cannot be forced to learn a new language (and in Ukraine many people my age will not even learn their own language and stick to Russian).
My estimate of 100 years allowed for all those who refused to learn an EU adopted language to literally die off, leaving only those who learned it from introduction into education systems.
The speed at which a language is learned has no baring on the willingness of people to learn it or indeed use it.
If we assume 20% of Europeans decided they were not going to bother learning language “x” just because the EU (with whom they don’t identify or we would not be having this discussion) says so then it doesn’t provide identity.
How many Europeans between the ages of 40 and 80 would bother? What percentage of the EU population falls into that age band? It will be large enough that they cannot be ignored as the are all of voting age.
How do you decide what language it will be? EU wide referendum? How do you sell the benefits of that to the 27 national populations simply for the ideological reason of identity? Is it imposed Soviet style to avoid what is guaranteed to show a massive split via national referendums?
How will the EU deal with the inevitable rise of the “far right nationalists” that will become more prominent in every single EU nation when national identity and national language is demoted to a second identity subordinate to being an EU citizen?
Main stream politics across Europe already fails miserably at tackling the far right head on in the public domain preferring to nibble away at some of its ideology and adopt it (for reasons of voter appeasement) resulting in a right-sliding EU, albeit at glacial speed.
I have sat and thought about a supra-structure that was given genuine legitimacy by the populous it presided over ahead of their individual national sovereignty when it comes to identity. I cannot find one.
Language will not overcome the power of national identity in favor of a supra-structural identity. Identity is personal to the “self” and made up of more than language. The history of the EU is simply too short to allow the “self” to identify with it ahead of national sovereignty. It cannot compete with the glorious ancient histories of Greece, or Rome. It is truly bland in comparison with the richness of historical empires such as France, Spain, Britain, Portugal, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Poland, Austro/Hungarian, Prussian etc. Here too is identity found.
It is a huge task to ask for identity legitimacy from the EU citizens when the EU is but a blip in history thus far regardless of any successes it may have had. Given its current situation and the disenfranchisement with politics generally in many nations that task becomes still harder. Compound that by the EU’s complex structure truly understood by so few of its citizenry and we begin to ask too much too soon.

And if my country Netherlands does not want to admit Romanians or Bulgarians because unemployment here is going up, then we have the right to. In almost every ‘poor’ area of major cities, crime is way up since waves of Eastern Europeans started to arrive. We are tired of being preached to by elitists who all live in their rich neighbourhoods where they get none of the problems we do in poorer neighbourhoods where all these immigrants come. And they are a drain on our welfare and health care system.

We want referendum on this question, and my country should withdraw from Schengen. No more eastern European criminals please.

To answer your questions Mr Cooman, yes all official documents were in Russian regardless of whether they were issued in Ukraine of not. From Birth Certificate to Death Certificate and everything in between.
Schooling was in Russian and the Ukrainian language was taught twice a week as a foreign language in effect.
What happened behind the closed doors of regional Soviets I do not know but all speeches, television, newspapers and radio was also only in Russian.
None of that made a Ukrainian think of themselves as anything other than Ukrainian however and as I say, many Ukrainians still use Russian as a first language.

I am happy with this topic. We should discuss it more, especially with anti-European camp. Finnish language has nothing to do with Indo-European family. Our language should be declared on EU-level as “endangered” infact. :) Yet, I am definitely pro-European. I can see the goal and purpose of EU. The rest of the world will follow. Because we are have to. And because they’are have to. This tiny planet can’t afford WW3. Not even India-Pakistan nuclear war. It is THAT SIMPLE.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19006203/Le-Goff-The-Birth-of-Europe

no and it will never be

A common European identity isn’t imposed by no Institution nor person. It’s history itself who forged it.

YES, there is a common European identity that each regional and national community adapted to its own particularities. And that common identity is the European tendency to universality.

Ancient Greece with science and philosophy; Rome with Caracalla Edict; Medieval Times and Christianity telling us that all human beings are members of a same universal community beyond their particularities; Modern times with modern science and the Great Discoveries that transformed the world into a single home for humanity; the Declaration of 1789 and Enlightenment which told us that we are all equals as rational beings.

All this and much more is Europe and Europeans. Nothing needs to be forged, there is nothing artificial in the concrete existence of a European identity. And there is nothing contradictory about the existence of a European identity and of several regional and national identities.

On the contrary: each regional and national identity is a single instrument playing in the same European concert.

Ελλάς Ελλήνων χριστιανών και πάει λέγοντας. Νισάφι με την παγκοσμιοποίησή σας. Δεν τραβάει, δεν το βλέπετε;;;;;

Everybody should have an idea where they come from its natural for humans to want that. For most people in Europe it’s town, region, country European. For most Europeans we are very happy with that as we want our, Fins, Germans, French, Czechs, Poles and 25 odd etc etc then the European umbrella. What we don’t want is globalist pretending we have no differences or trying to deconstruct our identities saying they don’t matter or it’s changeable or you can buy it or build it etc.
We all know where we come from and that will not change because we feel it .
It’s difficult for the designer left to understand this usually because they don’t want to as they see it as a threat to their idea of the World and their poor understanding of people. They think tags are interchangeable labels.
Europeans know in their hearts what it is because we feel it and enjoy the variety of being European you cant build it you just know it.

There’s one already. I feel European

It is in deed.

If you look at the Erasmus students you will see a generation of Europeans.

Yes, when we are socially equal. Equal benefits, equal pensions, equal wages, free healthcare & free education.

Unity in Diversity only requires a shared ideal of mutual respect. Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité is understood in any language. Those three basic principles form the basis of both democracy and sustainable development, are universal and interdependent, and belong to neither left nor right, east nor west, north nor south. They are also the founding principles of the EU, something our current European leaders seem to have forgotten…

I don’t see why not. If you travel in America or Asia, the defining factor is that “Oh, you’re European” – despite some people’s insistence on a more narrowly defined “national identity”. Being Greek, German, Portuguese or Finnish doesn’t exclude our being European as well. National pride and Europeanism are in no way mutually exclusive.

Depends if they mean European or subjects to the rule of law of the EU over and above that and one’s own country and its priorities. Yes to the first and no to the second

La masificacion y la globalizacion no es buena para nadie esta demonstrado que no ayuda en nada!

Yes

To stop the “us” and “them” in the EU, a common language and common passport will unite the common European. If cultural identity is so important, leave it to the families to teach it to their own children.

.

The concept of ‘European’ is an ideology not a reality so no there is no European identity, in the same way there was no common Communist or Nazi identity.

l’Unione europea non è stata creata con lo scopo di unire i popoli europei è questo il punto e il grande sbaglio VOLUTO dalle elite che volevano tutt’altro . La cultura può essere internazionalizzata l’economia no, ciò che va bene economicamente per la Germania non va bene per la Spagna ad esempio . Si è un solo popolo quando alla base ci sta il rispetto del popolo

the European Union was not created with the aim of uniting the peoples of Europe that is the point and the great accidentally WANTED by elites who wanted anything. Culture is an international the economy no good, what is good economically for Germany is not good for example Spain. It is only when the people at the base there is the respect of the people

io non ho niente contro la lingua inglese , secondo me è meglio la lingua latina o greca perchè è l’origine delle lingue e della cultura europea , studiandola capiamo le nostre radici fa parte di noi , aiuta l’integrazione. Chi ha voluto l’inglese doveva dare il tempo ai popoli europei di impararlo non puoi fare documenti importanti in una lingua che nessuno capisce . Non importa la percentuale di quanti conoscono l’inglese devono saperla tutti altrimenti è una fregatura e infatti l’Unione europea è una fregatura apposta lo hanno fatto .

I have nothing against the English, I think it is better to Latin or Greek because it is the origin of languages and European culture, studying understand our roots is part of us, it helps integration. Those who wanted the English had to give time to learn the European peoples can not do important documents in a language that no one understands. No matter the percentage of those who know English have to know how everyone else is a rip off and in fact the European Union is a rip off they did it on purpose.

The European Identity is not homogeneous but a collective characterization of cultures due to its diverse demographics, economics and social values. European values, though, tend to portray commonsensical values. As a result of Europe’s unique and diverse character, it is Europe’s diversity which makes such character unique, distinct and stronger. As such, Europa is United in Diversity akin to the European Union’s motto.

A European identity would be possible if Europeans shared a language that belongs to no particular country. Language-teachers generally despise Esperanto, but every European country has a national association for Esperanto, and by contacting it, language-teachers could become highly-qualified in the language. They could teach children to gain good qualifications in Esperanto. There is a perfectly respectable school-leaving examination in Esperanto, and language-teachers should prepare their youngsters for it. In 1976 I gained the Esperanto Diploma of the British Esperanto Association, and I have proved its value by communicating and exchanging visits with Esperanto-speakers in all European countries, so I feel truly European.

I live in Albania a European country where most people are not believers, but politics divide them into religious groups as a regional corruption policy. I think that we need to follow the unification politics in Christianity. You think that Islam is a big problem in the relations between people, because their religion cultivates the most different hatred. Islam does not evolve. We have to build the Amza = Matica facility in Serbia and Croatia. The peoples do not change themselves, nor with fb. Religioniduhet is understood in passport and identity card. We have maintained Christianity at a very high cost and we should not be equal to others who hate Europe and build sultan cults that sanctify the killer of the native inhabitant.