European Identity - From a construct to the innate

I recently read an article on Facebook criticising the rewriting of European history through the use of school text books. The article claimed that the books were glossing over the many divisions within European history in order to create the sense of a common European identity and thus an unstoppable process culminating naturally in a European State.

I am not going to talk about the rights and wrongs of the case against the textbooks, as I have not read them. Rather, I would like to discuss the idea that there is no such thing as a European identity.

Jean Paul Sarte once said that "we are what we make of what others make of us". A bit of a confusing statement I know :) but essentially he was always of the opinion that identity is something we create when dealing with the world around us.

The question is not therefore, is European identity something that has always existed but is this something that we can identify now. Are there things that identify Europeans as different to the rest of the world which overrides the differences between the individual identities? That does not mean that we must get rid of the others. We all carry many identities: I am English, British, a husband, a man, a teacher etc .  . These all play different roles in my life.

Returning to the idea if a constructed identity; both the British and American identities are the products of very discernible historical events. If you were to ask a resident of England living in 1650 about their sense of identity then you would be unlikely to get anything wider than English.  The Act of Union of 1707 created the political entity of Britain but it took many years to forge a common identity.  This process was still going on in the 19th century. 

In a similar way American identity was forged through the War of Independence yet even as late as the 1860s this identity was still somewhat artificial. The Civil War was horrifically bloody and pitted two very different identities against one another. The south were able to declare succession due in a large part to the lack of a sense of common identity with the north.

Yet today, in 2016, would we question the existence of either British or American identity? Of course not, they have both been forged through the common histories and exploits of their respective people. As with many things in life,  hardships often play a greater role in creating identity than prosperity. The idea of a common "other" an "enemy" will cement the sense of a shared identity faster than anything else.

This unfortunate fact means that until Europeans are forced to face the world together, then they probably won't. That said, it is just a matter of time before this identity is forced upon us and we have to 'make of what others make of us'. 

Jeremy

The road to peace

As we approach the date set by the British Prime Minister for a UK referendum on EU membership it is perhaps easy to loose track of the big picture. Both sides if the in/out argument seem to focus on the business and work reasons for staying in or getting out. But is this everything?

Are we purely mercantile egoists calculating our immediate gain without any regard to history or destiny? Britain did not become a prosperous liberal democracy through ignoring what was the right thing to do. Take the slaver trade for instance,  in 1807 and 1833 respectively  the slave trade and slavery were abolished. This was undoubtedly against the economy interests of the economy at the time, but was the right thing to do.

Taking this argument forward a bit; Britain's declaration of war against Germany in September 1939 made little economic sense. We were well-prepared for such an endeavour as the following 'phoney war' proved.  That said, morally it was the right thing to do. It was also the right strategic decision in the long term. Sometimes we must bite the bullet and take the mediate hardships in order to obtain some great prize.

That said, the economic arguments for or or against a British EU exit are far from a foregone conclusion. The one thing that economists do agree on is that it is impossible to predict the full repercussions of such a withdrawal. We should therefore perhaps refocus the argument, away from business and back to people's lives.

What do people gain from being in the EU and what do they loose? The average voter is not affected by the regulations regarding the city if London and has in fact more in common with a factory worker in Germany or Slovakia than they do with a stockbroker in London. Whereas the UK government is increasingly under the influence of big business it is in fact the EU'S labour laws that are the best protector of workers' rights in the UK.

The EU offers a path to integration and interdependency which acts as a deterrent for aggressive and destabilising national policies. Outside of the EU Britain would undoubtedly be forced into protectionist policies as its work and business market would be proportionately disadvantaged with regards its much large neighbour. Without the UK the EU would undoubtedly forge ahead towards deeper integration resulting in an insurmountable gap between the UK and the rest of Europe.

An independent UK standing alone against a federal Europe in say 50 years time would be in a very poor situation. By 2060 it is easy to forecast that China will have completed its ascendancy and be truly regarded as a global power, whilst the rest of the BRIC  countries will be on a similar level to that of many Western Europe  countries today. The one difference being population. Brazil,India and Russia all have population potential that far outstrips the most likely growth of any EU country. Once there economy has been developed enough then their greater population will be their true asset providing a workforce that we will be unable to match.

Whilst the USA and EU would be in a position to compete with the BRIC countries, the UK would be in  a marginalised position with perhaps only it's banking industry providing any rest-bite. However, as seen by the 2011 London Riots, the gulf between the haves and have-nots is already creating social problems and these would only be exasperated by an increasingly isolated UK.

As fuels decrease in abundancy the chances of conflict increase still further. We are already seeing the effects of a changing economy on our military.  The cuts announced by the Conservative government were met with warnings by seasoned generals on both sides of the Atlantic. A UK standing alone would have little chance of securing increasingly scarce resources or having an affect on international policy. The USA would be forced to deal with the EU over the UK as this would represent the best economic and thus strategic partner.

Returning to the opening argument, the EU grew out of the Coal and Steel Community which had a primary aim of integrating the industries of France and Germany in order to decrease the chance of war.  Although the industries of war have perhaps changed, the need for integration has not.  If you value peace and prosperity then you have but one choice: Vote no to a British exit.

Presidential Ambitions

Head in the Stars

 It is not often that I get accused of being a PiS supported, but that was my wife's whimsical reaction when I commented on current situation in Poland with regards to the EU Presidency.


On 1st July Poland took over the six month presidency of the EU. In itself this is a hugely historic moment for Poland as it is the culmination of Poland's struggle to free itself from the shadow of World War Two and its communist past. Obviously the Polish government are proud of the achievement; yet, they in them selves have had little to do with this. It was of course Prime Minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki who begun the process by voicing the feeling of the Polish government with the formal application for membership being lodged in 1994 under Prime Minister Waldemar Pawlak thus Prime Minister Tusk's government have in fact done very little to further the process.

Given that that by 2011 the Polish Presendency of the EU was a given fact, it is perhaps starange that it gets so much media and governemnt attention. It wa upon remarking that it is in fact a distraction from the real 'issues' that my wife asked if I had become a PiS supporter as they had been saying exactly that. PiS (Law and Justice Party) are for those who don't know, the main opposition party in Poland. They are, to put it mildly, a bunch of lunatics led by an even more bizarre figure who invariably uses cheap tricks to gain attention. Does that mean I have become a lunatic? I hope not. However, buy instinctivley stateing the opposite of whatever the government line is, PiS have in fact hit the nail on the head.


The government have filled every available space to promote the presidency, while drawing attention away from more important matters. In doing so they have been aided by a general lack of knowledge of EU internal politics. This is, alas, not by any means a Polish condition; few EU citizens truly understand the nature of the beast that is the EU and thus they are easily swayed by scare politics or in this case overly positive politics. Why overly? Well to be truly honest the rotating presidency amounts to very little indeed.

The Presidency will come and go and little will change. That is perhaps the sad part. The presidency means an excuse for the government to put of vital reforms for another six months.

Presdiential Security

The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration is currently mulling over a rather interesting idea. In order to ensure security for Poland's presidency of the EU in the second half of the year it is considering banning virtually every type of conceivable weapon.

All very well and good you may thing; yet lets have a look at this list: The Law on arms and ammunition, which is the basis to issue the regulation, includes not only regulation firearms. It is also mentioned in her air-guns, CS GAS, and tools and equipment, whose use could threaten life or health. This last category includes crossbows, stun guns and melee weapons (according to the law: Blades  hidden in objects like guns, brass knuckles and some types of clubs, including baseball bats).

In essense then the following is Public Enemy Number One:

A similar law as put in place in Warsaw during the funeral of President Kaczyński  when Warsaw was placed under such a restriction. Basically it was illegal to enter enter public placed in Warsaw with any of the proscribed instruments. The law as suggested for the presidency will cover certain cities during specific time periods. Once again, all very well and good.

It seems logical to ban guys with guns from being in the same city as visiting dignities. Yet as revealed by various news agencies it will also affect a baseball team travelling to a match.

Commentary?  Well, in my view this is all a tad over the top and a blanket solution to a specific problem. It is akin to the recent ruling in which Lech Poznan and Legia Warsaw had to play their games behind closed doors due to football hooliganism. By targeting all possible weapons the government are in fact breaking one of the cardinal rules of security: Security has to make sense.

If the security measures cause more negative effects than the conceivable negative effects that would be apparent through a lack of the measure, then the security measure defeats its self. For example, during the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland shoppers were under a continuous bomb threat; yet security had to allow people to actually move around and shop else the terrorists had to all extents and purposes one.

Returning to Poland, rather than employing intelligence assets to target prospectively specific threats, the government has chosen to employ a draconian method of civil control. In affect it has curtailed the normal rights of its citizens in order to play the 'tough on security card'.

The creation of a cultural reservoir by the drainage of culture

This year Poland is to hold the European Presidency for the first time. This prestigious and important role has many facets, however perhaps the most controversial and least widely known is that of culture.

As part of the presidency Poland will host the European Culture Congress 2011 to be held in Wrocław .The Polish government state that as part of the objectives for the presidency:

On culture, the leading subjects of the Polish Presidency will include development of social innovation and intellectual capital (through investment in culture, support for participation in culture and promotion of cultural and artistic education of persons of all ages) and negotiations on further editions of the Culture and Europe for Citizens programs.

There will also be events all around Poland as part of the presidency. All very well and good. What however is not stated in this positive statement is where the money for investment will come from. Inevitably the money has been moved from other cultural projects.

Budgets of Art institutions and universities have been drastically slashed this year. The ministry of culture website states that applications for funds have now closed for 2011, and its only March!

I understand that Poland is a bit short of money and that at the same time it wants to put on a good show. Yet by dealing with the problem in this way the lifeblood of regular artists has been cut.

Young aspiring artists depend on government grants to help them develop their ideas. This involves travelling to festivals and competitions. Does the government's policy meant that all students in 2011 will be left out in the cold?

Belarus and the false idolatry nature of sanctions

There seems to be an ever present vogue within international relations when it comes to how to deal with States that are considered at odds with the excepted view of what a State should be. Whether it be Iran and nuclear ambitions or Zimbabwe and political rights, the International Community and the international press congress around the idea of sanctions. We here of smart-sanctions and the like; strategically geared to hurt those in power, and not the normal citizen. Yet, looking back over the course of the post-war history it is difficult to see discernible examples of where sanctions brought about the desired regime change.

Jacek Pawlicki (Gazeta Wyborcza) in his January 31^st article claimed that the EU should stop pussy-footing about and start imposing real and punitive sanctions. Pawlicki claimed that the sanctions should be installed regardless of the side-effects (translated in Eurotopics as: “even if this means that parts of the country are reduced to poverty”). The journalist then went on to clarify that: “The impact of these measures could be softened by lifting the visa restrictions for ordinary Belarusian citizens or by providing numerous grants for young people or financial backing for independent media.”

The shear absurdity of this premise begs the casual reader to take stock and confirm that they have not inadvertently entered a dream-state. It only takes a cursory look at the history of sanction use to see that when employed non-specifically sanctions not only have little effect, they do indeed worsen the situation. Take Cuba for example; over forty years of a US embargo have not brought the pro-western outburst and collapse of the communist regime we assume they were intended to bring. Sanctions have allowed a dictatorial regime to justify itself as the defender of the nation against the “harsh imperialists”. Iran is yet another example where sanctions have had little effect and can be argued to have increased the patriotic fever in the country.

Sanctions no matter how “smart” invariable damage the ordinary citizen. Leaders, by the very nature of their position, manage to side-step such effects. In the process of damaging the average “Jo” sanctions increase a feeling of isolation and a need for a strong leader in troubled times. Therefore sanctions can have the direct opposite of the desired effect. Pawlicki's call for a lifting of visa restrictions seems a heartless joke in comparison. The knock-on effect of such sanctions and visa restrictions could be a deluge of poor hungry refugees leaving behind a bitter and trustless country to stick to its guns.

The EU should embrace Belarus and use positive tactics to attract ordinary Belorussians to “convert”. Lukashenko still has a large following of ordinary people. It is these ordinary people that must be won. Poland's cultural program (BELSAT TV broadcasts etc...) has far more potential for change. It is only with a true grass-roots change that any real democracy can be forged.

The PM has resently said that Poland should be ready to meet all the criteria for accepting the Euro by 2011. I must admit that i was a little surprised by this as iexpected it a little latter. However, i am pleased as it will help Poland to further integrate with the rest of the EU. I just wish that the UK would do the same!!!

I am pro-EU and yet patriotic. This dicotomy often leaves me with a confused headache, yet if push came to shove, then i would always favioutr closer integration of the EU.

Serbia decides!!!

We are now staring to see the real fallout form Kosovo’s declaration of independence last month. After failing to agree on a common front the Serbian Parliament has been dissolved and elections called for the 11th May by Serbian President Boris Tadic.

The main problem lies in their (Serbia’s) relationship with the EU, where most member states recognized the independence of Kosovo. Some political groups want to break off relations with the EU where as others see this as too drastic.

The new elections could mean that pro-EU groups gain power and we could see a new and refreshed Serbia. However, the opposite could of course happen and Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica may receive an endorsement of his stance regarding the issue.

A Cristian Europe versus An Open Europe

President Kaczynski - Christianity is the EU foundation

Poland's President Lech Kaczynski, in an article for the tabloid 'Fakt' that: 'The Union cannot build its future with no reference to the centuries old history of Europe and European roots. This is why it is so difficult for us to accept opposition to a reference to Christian values in the preamble to the future Constitutional Treaty.'

The Berlin Declaration is to be signed in the capital city of Germany, as part of events marking the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome and the birth of the EU.

The declaration is to play a key role in drafting the preamble to the bloc's new Constitutional Treaty.

President Kaczynski said that the Union must continue to expand.

"For Poland it is obvious that the European Union, if it wants to retain its dynamics and to count on a global scale – it must be an open union".

On behalf of the bloc's 27 member states, the Berlin Declaration will be signed tomorrow by the German Chancellor, the European Parliament and the European Commission leaders.

Poland's foreign minister Anna Fotyga is on leave and will not take part in the ceremony.

Above taken from www.poland.pl

Are the two points raised by the President of Poland not a little conflicting? If we make Cristianity a fundamental part of the Constitution, then to which countries are we supposed to expand. Is it a good message to send to Turkey, Bosnia and Albania, that yes you can come in, but please remember that we are Christian and we were here first!

Religion, is and has always been a private matter. Jesus himself made this crystal clear when remarking that what is ceasar, render unto ceasar and what is God's render under God.

This mix of politics and religion is the most frightening aspect of the current PiS government in Poland.