Harri Xabier Fernandez Iturralde

Journalist and consultant on political communication

 

“Europe has become incomprehensible to us.” This statement was made a few

weeks ago by Professor of Philosophy and Social Policy and Director of the

Globernance Institute for Democratic, Daniel Innerarity, in the context of the 6th

meeting of European Dialogues entitled, A new narrative for Europe: Is there a

shared understanding for Europe?, organized by Globernance, the San Telmo

Museum and the office of the San Sebastian Cultural Capital 2016. The Dialogue

was attended by the Minister of State and Regional Development of Portugal,

Miguel Maduro and the Ex President of the European Commission, José Manuel

Durão Barroso, who tried to settle where Europe is headed and what are its

current limitations.

What is Europe? Is it powerful? Is it the union of several states? Is it the union of

several nations? What is the understanding of Europe? Do countries that

comprise the EU have the same goal? Greece grabs headlines and these and

dozens of other questions hover in recent days in the minds of the citizenry. The

apparent need to build a shared narrative among all EU members is facing the

reality that some Member States through its hegemony, dictate the fate of the

Union. Moreover, as quoted Maduro, Europe is facing a problem of “economic

and political fragmentation.”

The claim made by Innerarity on the “intelligibility” of Europe -probably derived

from an individual account of each country or, put another way, the individual

reality of states and their interdependence with the Union- is based, at present,

on two cases. One is very recent. We refer, of course, to the aforementioned

crisis in Greece. And another in the near future will be the UK referendum to

decide whether to retreat or not from the EU. These are two very different cases

wherein each story is completely different. However, both collide with the further

unification of Europe and the possibilities to make it a “power” that can compete

with the US and China, as claimed by Durao Barroso. Taking as its premise the

need to increase the “convergence” or “integration” between the Member States,

as defended by Maduro defended, in addition to the necessary “mutual trust” and

solidarity.

In the Greek case, the measures required of Greece that Tsipras has agreed to

drives the country further into debt, an issue that could only be avoided through

restructuring and an analysis of debt relief. Nevertheless, in recent weeks the

attitude of the Eurogroup to the Hellenic country could be defined as even

political and economic bullying. Where is the solidarity in Europe, one that was in

the DNA of the founding of the Union? Which was displayed even earlier, for

example in 1952, when the creditor countries of Germany after World War II,

among whom were Greece, the Spanish State and Ireland, negotiated the

debtor’s obligations.

In the case of Britain, Durão Barroso acknowledged that it would be a “defeat” for

the EU that the British cease to belong to the Eurogroup and called for the

creation of conditions so that the country governed by Cameron feels

“comfortable” in the Union. A valid affirmation, certainly as valid at present in the

first case mentioned in Greece, as opposed to the performance of the country’s

creditors.

Perhaps countries should recapture the spirit of the phrase recited by Victor

Hugo at the International Peace Congress in Paris in 1849: “There will come a

day when (…) all nations of the continent, without losing their distinctive qualities

and their glorious individuality, arise as a higher unity and form a European

brotherhood.” The key is there in the concept of “brotherhood”, in which EU

Member States are respected fraternally for the good of each and for the good of

all. Only through a shared and solidary understanding of themselves and of the

EU, and by replacing hegemony with mutual respect, only then will Europe be

strengthened.