In a controversial speech, Klaus Welle MEP, the Parliament’s Secretary General said more was needed to foster a collective European identity. This was a bold and blusterous statement, but he makes an interesting case. Is this the right attitude for Europeans, a collection of separate peoples with embedded cultures forged over thousands of years, or pointless and hopeful federalism?
During his tenure as Secretary General, Welle has generated some interesting ideas. He commissioned the Parliamentarium, the ultra-expensive visitor centre in the Parliament complex in Brussels last year, suggested buying an iPad for every MEP. He makes bold statements, but this is all part of his remit. He has been charged with the exceptionally hard task of making the European Parliament matter to ordinary EU citizens.
If he can make the citizenry feel more European, this will help him battle apathy measured by low voter turnout. In 2009 voter turnout in European elections averaged 43%; the lowest ever with some member states below 20%. His suggestion of fostering a European identity is flawed though and unlikely to succeed.
Against this backdrop Welle’s suggestion is well intentioned, but ignores the feeling and passion amongst people that national identities create. While it is possible to feel generally proud of European (nee Western) culture, people, especially in the bigger EU countries will always see themselves as a national first. A British MP told me recently “I am Welsh first, British second and European third”. Imagine how aggrieved a proud Parisian would feel should they find a Slovakian boasting about that famous European painter Toulouse-Lautrec. They would feel the same way as the Swiss would if a Portuguese person claimed William Tell as their own. This attitude is exeplified by French plans to build a Napoleon theme-park.
Europeans are too diverse and culturally/linguistically entrenched to feel European above their own nationalities, but this is not to totally reject similarities or reasons to be proud of Europe. There are of course strands of history that can be celebrated, but the inconvenient truth is much of Europe’s history is more about rivalry than unity. It’s only since World War Two ended we’ve started to properly work together as a continent and it’s this recent work, leading the world on human rights, climate and development that should be celebrated, not trying to manipulate history and shoehorn a culture that doesn’t fit on to already sceptical Europeans.
What would an EU identity look like anyway? Apart from football and decent cars there aren’t many components of a European culture that everyone could agree on, especially in a union of 27 states. But this is to be celebrated as nowhere else on earth do you have such an incredibly vibrant mix of cultures, languages and cuisines all bound up in one relatively small geographic area. The fact Europe is so tolerant and appreciative of its individual cultures and not imposing on others is a key strength in Europe.
If you leave the continent, you’ll see European history is lumped together as one narrative for students in North America and Asia. They generally teach the major themes, such as the renaissance era, religious wars, revolutions leading up to the rise of empires and the ‘Great Power Wars’. The teaching is very thematic looking at how issues affected things cross border, not paying particular credence to individual nation states.
Contrast this with history teaching in Europe and it’s a different story. Each nation state will have a deeper understanding of their own member state history and often fail to link these events to other countries and appreciate the interconnectedness. For example if studying in the UK, you will learn how Henry VIII adopted Protestantism in order to ditch his wife, totally ignoring how Luther’s thesis was revolutionising religion across Central and Western Europe. In Italy, the Risorgimento is studied in minute detail, but minus the analysis of how Cavour and Garibaldi were inspired by other unification movements on the continent, let alone material and political support from France. There is a good argument to have European history taught in schools, but alongside national histories, giving students the balance of the general trends and the minute detail to understand their own past and the way nations interact with each other.
Welle’s idea is fundamentally flawed. For most people, the charm of Europe is in the differences and variety. Yes, of course there are obvious similarities such as religion, the belief in liberal democracy and the welfare state, but we should celebrate our differences. If Welle really wants to get more people to vote, he should look at real principles affecting the EU, such as getting the elected EuroParl the power to propose legislation instead of the undemocratic Commission rather than gimmicks like this.
This article assumes that Welle meant a sense of European identity to replace national identities, but he seems to have argued for such a sense to supplement national identities, so that more people can be like your Welsh MEP and say “I am Welsh first, British second and European third”. Too mant people assume that identity is single and absolute, whereas for most of us it can be plural. In sports, many Brits will identify with a local fotball club, a county cricket team, the English/Welsh/Scottish rugby team, the British olympic team and the European (Ryder cup) golf team. This is not contradictory – they are just different dimensions to multifaceted identity. Is encouraging people to be more aware of the European dimension bad?
Good article Craig though I don’t think I can relate so much to having an entrenched national identity and as Richard Corbett says, identity can be plural.
I’ve never understood national identity because I don’t feel particularly like I am of one nationality having grown up in different cultures to those of relatives but the one way I do identify myself is with being European so it must mean something, to me at least. For example I feel lucky to have been born in Europe and not America (proud would be a bad word to use, my opinion anyway, because how can one be proud of something as arbitrary as the patch of earth one was born on?).
Maybe more and more people will come to identify as European due to the past decade’s explosion of Freedom of Movement (a wonderful European citizen’s right) and so people live and work in different places and meet friends and partners of a different nationality. Umberto Eco put it in far better words than I could in an interview he gave to the Guardian months ago about the Erasmus uni project helping create European Identity because different European nationals meet, have children and those children are Europeans rather than nationals of a defined state.
I do think our human rights culture (the best in the world in my opinion) is the kind of thing that we all have in common (as opposed to just football!) Perhaps if the fantastic and progressive rights we have as Citizens of the EU were better advertised to people, a few more might at least appreciate being an EU citizen!
Hey, thanks for the comments Richard and Velida. It’s not at all bad to feel more European, however I think people in some countries, especially the larger former imperial states will never feel ‘European’ in the way for example people in South America, or the CIS feel part of a region.
The Freedom of Movement is an incredible thing, and alongside things such as the Champions League, European Champs, Eurovision, ERASMUS and low cost air travel, EU citizens are incredibly well placed to be able to experience a host of different cultures and lifestyles without having to trouble vast and expensive distances. But developing an awareness and understanding of other European cultures isn’t quite building a collective European identity. I covered our cultural and linguistic differences, but politically, European countries are very different- for example try testing Norwegian law in Romania, or French intolerance to religion in Spain (plus the fact you have a real schism appearing of austerity v growth at the highest level now).
I do agree with you Velida that there are increasing numbers of Europeans getting hitched with foreigners and that will create a more intertwined generation, but they will adopt dual nationalities rather than feel ‘European’. I just can’t see how being a European will manifest itself in a day to day, though do concede there is an ignorant view, especially in China and the US that being European is one and the same thing, whether you’re Swiss or Polish…
The closest Europeans will get to a collective identity is going to be a regional one, based on common heritage, langauge and location. You already see it in Scandanavia, UK/Ireland and the Benelux nations. I would say the Balkans too, but you could probably tell me more accurately if a Croatian has an affinity (if any) with a Macedonain! However that last statement is purely based on Eurovision votes……