There’s no going back

Thanks to the World Cup, the Germans are once again proud of their national identity, even if many warn of the danger of a nationalistic revival. But which of us feels European? Who does not associate the EU in the first place with an elephantine bureaucracy or the squandering of billions in subsidies? Great hopes are being placed in the Presidency of the EU assumed by Germany on 1st January this year. But after the disconcerting rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by French and Dutch electors, it’s not easy to be euphoric. That, however, is not so important. The crucial point is that all Europeans, in the depths of their heart, know that there’s no turning back. Europe is by now a reality that forms part of our daily life. Future historians will marvel in observing with what rapidity old barriers were abolished and old currencies forgotten in Europe: in their place new internal markets and transnational cultural spaces have arisen. Despite that, we must not deceive ourselves into thinking we can rest on our laurels. The EU must maintain its capacity to take decisions and to act, if it wishes to solve the Turkish question, and the problems of immigration and demographic change, in a just and constructive way. Even more important is the consciousness that the European values of justice, solidarity and tolerance must, also in future, be assumed as essential points of reference in tackling the “great” moral questions. How can we guarantee to all the young, irrespective of their social origins, a future of self-determination? How can we oppose the “religion of the market” with an approach that places man firmly in the centre? How can we guarantee the dignity of man in the debates on euthanasia and bioethics, faced by the explosion of the costs of healthcare? These are questions that no EU member state can, in the long term, tackle alone. Germany is slowly realizing this in terms of the protection of the embryo: the strict German laws are being undermined by the more liberal European legislation. The consciousness that on this question Europe ought to conduct an intensive common discussion is lacking. Even the Churches ought to make a stronger contribution to this debate. And what about the mass media? We are far from having a European public opinion able to openly discuss, on a democratic basis, the future course of European integration. It’s also clear that, to this end, a space of common discussion can never exist. There exists no European television channel common to everyone, no mass-market magazine that is distributed throughout the continent. What there do exist, on the other hand, are small and well-motivated projects that could open new roads. “Eurozine.com”, for example, is a network that links over 100 cultural journals. The European current affairs review “Cafe Babel” currently provides information in seven languages. But the big mass media continue almost exclusively to play the national card. France has recently launched its own news channel to compete with CNN. On the Italian television market, too, there exist signs of cooperation at the European level. The debates taking place in Germany are covered by the mass media in other countries only if a new film on Hitler is released or if two neo-Nazis beat up an immigrant from outside the EU. It’s a pity. Linguistic barriers represent an obstacle now and will continue to do so in future. Despite the fact that the new generations have an ever better command of foreign languages, we will probably have to continue using the lingua franca par excellence , English, to be able to communicate effectively at the transnational level. The fact is, however, that there are still too few debates on the issues of primary importance, such as future developments of Europe or how to strike the right balance between economic needs and shared European values.