EUROPE AFTER 1945
     
Wars brought Europe collapse and almost entire destruction, not only for people and equipment, but also in terms of geopolitics and technical and scientific fields. After WW-II, The Hague Congress provided the opportunity to discuss ideas about the development of European political co-operation. The Hague Congress was held in the Congress of Europe in The Hague from 7th to 11th of May 1948 with 750 delegates participating from around Europe as well as observers from Canada and the United States.
Hague Congress Ridderzaal Western European Union CEPS Annual Conference 5 March 2009, Reforming the EU Treaties and what role left for markets The Sound of Europe. Participants from politics, science, academics, art, media, diplomacy and clergy got together with the European Commission to talk about the role and future of Europe, her objects in view and chances and to give new ideas, opinions, suggestions and proposals as part of a new sound. The conference was held out of the need and necessity to give a renewed content to identity, culture and values, meant as a launch for the future of Europe. State of the Union 2010. The ratification of the new Treaty behind, the European Union is under pressure to return to the serious business of governing.
Jan 2010: Spain's Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Moratinos at CEPS on Europe as a global actor Roman Herzog, former German federal chancellor, on the future of Europe worth knowing: Euro and European Central Bank Frankfurt Centre for Eutroipean Policy Studies, Thinking ahead for Europe 2010: Van Rompuy lectured about the state and future of EUROPE
CEPS Annual Meeting 2008 on Europe's role in the world and international challenges 2012: discussions on federalism and economic governance with Giuliano Amato, Yves Leterme and William Kennard Implementing Lisbon: Jerzy Buzek addressed Energy during CEPS AC 2010 2008: 10th anniversary of the passing of Konstantinos Karamanlis, co-founder of the idea Europe Building a viable Union. Herman Van Rompuy: Directio comes before speed
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

With his plea for a United States of Europe, Curchill was one of the first to advocate European integration to prevent the atrocities of two world wars from ever happening again, calling for the creation of a Council of Europe as a first step.

9 May 1948, in The Hague, 800 delegates from all European countries met, with Churchill as honorary president at a grand Congress of Europe. This led to the creation of the Council of Europe



Wars brought Europe collapse and almost entire destruction, not only for people and equipment, but also in terms of geopolitics and technical and scientific fields. After WW-II, The Hague Congress provided the opportunity to discuss ideas about the development of European political co-operation. The Hague Congress was held in the Congress of Europe in The Hague from 7th to 11th of May 1948 with 750 delegates participating from around Europe as well as observers from Canada and the United States.

Organised by the International Committee of the Movements for European Unity and presided over by Winston Churchill, the Congress brought together representatives from across a broad political spectrum, providing them with the opportunity to discuss ideas about the development of European Union. Important political figures such as Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan, François Mitterrand, Paul-Henry Spaak, Albert Coppé and Altiero Spinelli took an active role in the congress and a call was launched for a political, economic and monetary Union of Europe. This landmark conference was to have a profound influence on the shape of the European Movement, which was created soon afterwards. The Spanish statesman Salvador de Madariaga proposed the establishment of a College of Europe at the Congress. This would be a college where university graduates from many different countries, some only a short while before at war with each other, could study and live together.

The Congress also discussed the future structure and role of the Council of Europe. In 2008 it was 60 years ago the gathering was held. In honour of that, the below mentioned message to Europeans was pledged. Let all therefore take note that we Europeans, assembled to express the will of all the peoples of Europe, solemnly declare our common aims in the following five articles, which summarise the resolutions adopted by the Congress:

PLEDGE
"
(1) We desire a United Europe, throughout whose area the free movement of persons, ideas and goods is restored;
(2) We desire a Charter of Human Rights guaranteeing liberty of thought, assembly and expression as well as the right to form a political opposition;
(3) We desire a Court of Justice with adequate sanctions for the implementation of this Charter;
(4) We desire a European Assembly where the live forces of all our nations shall be represented;
(5) And pledge ourselves in our homes and in public, in our political and religious life, in our professional and trade union circles, to give our fullest support to all persons and governments working for this lofty cause, which offers the last chance of peace and the one promise of a great future for this generation and those that will succeed it."

The shattered state of Germany, both physically and as a society, in the immediate aftermath of World War II. The narration explains what is being done – and what needs to be done – both by the occupying Allied forces and the German people themselves to build a better Germany from the ruins
Europe is threatened, Europe is divided, and the greatest danger comes from her divisions. Impoverished, overladen with barriers that prevent the circulation of her goods but are no longer able to afford her protection, our disunited Europe marches towards her end. Alone, no one of our countries can hope seriously to defend its independence. Alone, no one of our countries can solve the economic problems of today. Without a freely agreed union our present anarchy will expose us tomorrow to forcible unification whether by the intervention of a foreign empire or usurpation by a political party.

The hour has come to take action commensurate with the danger. Together with the overseas peoples associated with our destinies, we can tomorrow build the greatest political formation and the greatest economic unit our age has seen. Never will the history of the world have known so powerful a gathering of free men. Never will war, fear and misery have been checked by a more formidable foe. Between this great peril and this great hope, Europe’s mission is clear. It is to unite her peoples in accordance with their genius of diversity and with the conditions of modern community life, and so open the way towards organised freedom for which the world is seeking. It is to revive her inventive powers for the greater protection and respect of the rights and duties of the individual of which, in spite of all her mistakes, Europe is still the greatest exponent. Human dignity is Europe’s finest achievement, freedom her true strength. Both are at stake in our struggle. The union of our continent is now needed not only for the salvation of the liberties we have won, but also for the extension of their benefits to all mankind.

Upon this union depend Europe’s destiny and the world’s peace.
         
PROCESSES of REUNITING      
2012

14 November 1999, Jacques Delors addressed at the Aspen Institute the Wallenberg lecture, called "Reuniting Europe: Our Historic Mission": With the collapse of the Soviet empire, history is once again on the march in Europe. But although the fall of the Berlin Wall truly paved the way for the reunification of Europe, the ten years which have since elapsed have been merely what might be termed a "transitional" stage towards the market economy and democracy. For many of the European countries in question the future is still uncertain. During this lecture not only the cultural dimension, the geopolitical dimension, and the political project was raised, but also the need for the presence of viable institutions.

Our life and physical, mental and virtual environment can become more comfortable. Speaking about date and place, there will also be a change of notion. Europe is still a powerful bloc and on term she can become stronger by taking up a position as a hub, her smartness, her enlargement-policy, by shared objectives with the US and by trade and stability agreements. SMO (The Institute for Society and Enterprise - The Hague) shows us thoughts on not only wireless utility computing, hybrid cars, nanotechnology (self-cleaning windows, coats that become a raincoat at the moment it starts to rain and.probes by which it become possible to save millions of gigabytes on one harddisk), but also on smart robots, alternative energy and quantum computing.

Today the European Union (EU) has not only become a single integrated market and trading block of 500 million people, though that in itself would have been a considerable achievement. For its 28 member countries, it is also a major legislative force: its regulations and policies reach into many areas of economic and social life. In order to prevent total global collapse and disruption, it is of importance to work on fair trade, tax harmonization, financial stability, on eco-social thinking and acting, together with a humanistic attitude to life and thinking ahead on outlooks: economics and innovation are needed drivers. New findings and inventions will give impulse. These aspects take care of turning-points and will create a new era and new markets. But think global - act European: The challenge is not only about finding the right compromises to put the new institutional apparatus into place but to take its full potential for increasing urgently the efficiency of policy-making at EU level and timely allowing the EU to take fundamental decisions in a worrying international context.

During a conference 'Why Europe?' in 2006 SIEPS devoted attention to possibilities and limits of European integration. In 'Great Decisions 2008' Andrew Moravcsik wrote about European integration: 'A half century ago, who would have believed that Europe—and, at its heart, hereditary enemies France and Germany—would sponsor the single most successful voluntary international institution in human history? In two generations, European integration has not only contributed to economic growth and political stability, but it has fundamentally altered the way Europeans think about national sovereignty and national identity.

European political cooperation does not develop sustainably. Periods of standing still, relapse or progress does constantly alternate. In February 2006, European Security Forum together with CEPS and IISS issued the paper 'STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE EU CRISIS', primarily as a result of the French and Dutch rejections of the Constitutional Treaty, which have opened up a period of deep and protracted difficulties for the European Union. The strategic implications of the new situation are compounded by the fact that foreign and security policy was one of the areas in which significant innovations have been provided for by the treaty.
Chairman's summing-up
:

In presenting a paper on the American perspective, disputed was the notion of a ‘crisis’ in the literal sense of the word, preferring the word ‘malaise’. Underscored was the limited extent of ‘Schadenfreude’ in Washington. There was now a good chance to move away, on both sides of the Atlantic, from moralising attitudes, to have a more dynamic debate on the future of Europe. The director of the Aspen Institute Berlin noted that the strategic glue between the US and Europe was not as readily provided as before by common values (but not ‘clone’ values) or common interests (we all have ‘sharper elbows’ and our interests don’t always coincide). But when addressing the question of transatlantic co-operation, his view was that it was necessary to think through the alternatives to sticking together.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

The Institute of Europe, put forward the proposition that the EU crisis means the end of a ‘normative empire’. While emphasising the absence of mutual trust in the EU-Russia relationship, it was considered that the future of the European integration project cannot be abstracted from the form of co-operation with Russia, in effect a European-Russian future. The aim was to extend ‘peace in Eurasia’ in the same way that the EU’s goal had hitherto been ‘peace in Europe’. Underlined was also the importance of interests in providing the glue between the US and the EU as between Russia and the EU. Defended were the virtues of ambiguity within the context of existing treaty language (which mentions ‘Europe’ without defining it in geographical terms). Be wary of using the word ‘crisis’, which conveys the impression that European integration is essentially treaty-driven whereas recent examples (the Services Directive, the European Arrest Warrant) show otherwise. Considered was that in the case of CFSP, political will is more important than institutions. In presenting the proposals concerning variable geometry, recalled was the need to define those areas which would need to be common and not variable (e.g. trade, competitions, single market, fisheries, regional policy, elements of CAP, border control, environment). Added was that the suggestion of “associate membership of CFSP” could include Russia.

Too much hubris had accompanied the Constitutional Treaty project, moving away from the methodology of Jean Monnet or, to use a British precedent, of Bagehot: We forgot to do things which are effective rather than dignified or decorative. Noted was that there had indeed been little Schadenfreude in the US, but, rather more so in Russia, because of opposing views on enlargement (i.e. for Moscow, the less enlargement the better, for Washington the more the better). On the ultimate limits of Europe, the rhetorical question was asked if the Mediterranean or the Sahara was the limit of the EU to the South. On the issue of associate membership of CFSP, it was stressed not only the limited appeal of such halfway-house solutions (countries want a seat at the table) but also the limited ability of a still weak CFSP to cope with such an approach (hence the ‘no’ to Norway’s ideas on this score).

Variable geometry would have occurred even with the Constitutional Treaty. And even those who want variable geometry need to explain who would define the areas that would not be subject to variable geometry. On a different note, it was observed that ‘output legitimacy’ had reached its limits. The point was made that the arrest warrant had been struck down by the German constitutional court in part for reasons related to national sovereignty. Stressed was also that the smaller states had to be ‘brought along’ in the EU integration process and that CFSP had not been a contentious item in the French and Dutch referenda. The view was that there will be a need for a new treaty down the road if the EU wants to have an EU foreign minister. This point was underscored by a Dutch speaker, who asked how the EU could deal with Asia if the ‘malaise’ is unresolved. Another participant raised the risk of ‘protectionist groupings’ arising in the case of variable geometry while a member of CEPS noted that enlargement would be slowed down without a treaty. In response, the issue was raised of eventual extension of the EU’s ‘enlargement leverage’ as far afield as North Africa or Russia or Kazakhstan. Agreed was that the Constitutional Treaty should be considered as dead. He suggested that the existing treaties could provide the basis for deciding what would not be eligible for variable geometry.

Furthermore, it was noted that one would indeed need a Constitutional Treaty to have an EU foreign minister. Noted was that, although it is possible in theory to create the service d’action extérieur (SAE) without a treaty, one would still have to decide to whom the SAE would report, which brings one back to the foreign minister. The Croatian Accession Treaty could possibly be used to incorporate elements of CFSP-related language. Participants were reminded of the recent speech given by the Belgian foreign minister in Florence, observing that not every EU country would be interested in every CFSP issue. On the issue of the EU’s limits, it was considered that this was a divisive debate whose time had not yet come. Also the view was present that the EU crisis had really started in 1997, when variable geometry was introduced and that variable geometry kills solidarity.

Russian participants pointed out that the EU-Russia Partnership and Co-operation Agreement would expire in 2007.
A member of CEPS took exception to the idea that the EU had ceased to be a ‘normative empire’, noting that Russia lay outside the EU’s system of norms and values.
On the issue of the EU’s limits, one participant observed that the French départments in Algeria had been covered by the original treaties in the 1950s, while Cyprus had been included in the Council of Europe at the same time, thus reminding us of the many meanings which could be given to the word ‘Europe’…
A Finnish participant noted that the EU had made substantial progress in the field of defence, citing the creation of battle groups and the European Defence Agency. He wondered where this would lead us in the next 20 years.
A Japanese speaker suggested that the real crises were budgetary or political (e.g. the leadership conflict between Mr. Blair and M. Chirac) rather than constitutional. Cherrypicking could deal with the latter.
A Canadian participant also took the view that the incremental progress on European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and JLS, combined with the inevitable leadership changes in Paris and London, could get the EU beyond the current malaise. He added that with the accession of Croatia, the Nice Treaty would become obsolete in terms of its voting weight provisions. This could be an opportunity for broader change in the form of a new treaty
.

In response was considered that the EU had not been a serious player with Russia, either before or after the rejections of the Constitutional Treaty. The latter had not changed things much from that standpoint. Russia was not getting as much leverage as it could in its relations with the EU from its position in the field of energy, where its policy has essentially been one of a mere seller of oil and gas. One participant did not concur with the view that “variable geometry kills solidarity”. In his view, the ‘EU-3’ on Iran, the policy towards Ukraine and the Euro were all positive examples of solidarity. He agreed with the role of defence in helping the EU move forward. As to where defence convergence would be in 20 years, he foresaw common procurement, enhanced pooling of assets and the development of the EU’s military intervention capability.

In conclusion, he observed that Russia’s values and attitudes were different from those of the EU, but noted that whereas Russia’s values could change, the sheer size of Russia would not, thus bringing us back to the question of the EU’s limits.


   
Herman van Rompuy placing Europe
as a street, where things can be
done alone or together:
Europe as a market, Europe as space and as a place. An idea dominates of a European Union that brings unwelcome competition. Herman van Rompuy opposes such an image by placing Europe as a street, where things can be done alone or together and suggested that the beautiful idea of 'Europe' decreased in the indication "Brussels"
The establishment of the European Union is an important theme. Developments within Europe's process of integration since the debt-crisis and further transfer of responsibilities to Brussels will constitute a bet in politics. Not only Jurgen Habermas criticizes the post-democratic exercise of power by the European Council and calls for further political integration in the European Union based on a democratic association of nation states with an important role for citizens, but also the European Parliament did through a speech in May 2012 on 'A Democratic Europe
2011:
Roman Herzog, former chancellor of Germany, lectured on critical sounds
on the development of the EU
>>
Concerns were expressed about declining support amoung the citizens for common policies of the 28 member-states. More European integration does not necessarily mean 'lose of identity'. It is a misunderstanding to think that European countries can solve their problems within national context. Member-states of the Union should not hold their national sovereignty on all fields. Strong institutions are necessary, now and in the future. 'In many ways we need no less, but more Europe'.
The key challenge for Europeans in the next few years will be to identify and collectively defend common interests and values in a rapidly changing world where size still matters a great deal. If this is indeed the end of an era, we are not yet sure what will succeed it. We are still fumbling in the dark, trying to cope with the damage created by the bursting of a big bubble. The political vacuum created by the collapse of neo-liberal ideology has not been filled as yet; if anything, it tends to be filled by populism. And this has major implications for national as well as European politics and policy-making. It would be dangerously naïve to think that the European dimension of the crisis can be dealt with independently from the rest. Economic dynamism needs to be combined with a more qualitative and socially inclusive approach to economic development, thus creating the conditions for a new social contract that would cater more for the interests of the economically weaker, as well as the interests of younger generations.
Guido Westerwelle lectured 4 October on the future of Europe's common project:
Building a European Union for Stability - Shaping Global Change addressed development of a vision on a sustainable solution, thus finishing the economic and monetary Union. Not only items as globalization, more Europe, no renationalisation, strengthening EFSF, tougher approaches and Treaty adaption raised, but also climate protection, energy policy, migration, terrorism and democratic legitimation of coming changes.
Europe and the World, a debate on mutual allocation of values between the European Union and member states
We landed in an era with power shifts, wherein the US is living in reduced circumstances, the EU is faltering and the NATO has once in a while a shortage of weapons in Libya to fight. What to choose and what to do?
The need that European countries need each other and that such starting point moves towards a Federal Europe, is set out in a paper, called 'One Europe'.
2010:
Robert Menasse challenged on
'another Europe'.

According to Robert Menasse 'kann in ein Bündnis von Nationalstaaten und um seine nationalen Interessen einzubringen, der Anspruch, sie in einem nachnationalen Prozess aufzuheben, vernünftig und notwendig sein.

Dabei müsste man allerdings diskutieren, was in einem solchen Prozess nationale Interessen sinnvollerweise wären: etwa der Anspruch, die in einem Nationalstaat bereits erkämpften und durchgesetzten Standards von demokratischer Partizipation, Bürgerrechten, sozialem Ausgleich, Umweltschutz etc. auf höherer Ebene nicht zurückzulassen' and is another Europe thinkable.