The European Union
Democratic Values, The Euro, Crises and Migration

The European Union is formed from a collection of treaties dating back to the European Economic Community founded in 1957. It has changed from an economic body designed to prevent war, into a wide and varied economic, social and political tool which encompasses nearly 500 million people₁. "The EU is the world's biggest market, largest exporter, biggest aid donor and largest foreign investor"₂. Here are some of my notes on this growing megalith.

1. European Democratic and Social Values, and Fundamental Rights
2. The State of the EU Constitution
3. Forms of European Unity
   1. Multispeed Europe
   2. The United States of Europe
   3. 200 Years of Ideas
4. The Benefits of the European Union
   1. The Euro
   2. The Successful Promotion of Democracy and Achievement of Regional Peace and Stability
   3. Strengthened Democracy Against Lawless Multinationals
5. The EU is in Crises
   1. The EU is Always in Crises
   2. Popular Disillusionment with the EU
6. EU Immigration and Internal Migration
   1. Free Migration is Beneficial and Increasingly Essential
   2. A Combined European Border
7. The Benefits of the Future
   1. The Power of Solidarity
   2. Standardization of Corporate Tax
8. Religion In Europe: Secularisation, Tolerance and Freedom
   1. Belief in God
   2. The Waning of Religion in a Modern Continent
   3. France
   4. Religion in Scandinavia
   5. Eastern Europe
   6. European Law and Values on Religion

1. European Democratic and Social Values, and Fundamental Rights

The EU has no utmost declaration of rights (the constitution would have provided one), so the following is a mixture of legal precedents, EU membership requirements, treaty obligations along with some practical realities of European culture:

• Political Values and Rights. These are largely in keeping with democracy worldwide, although the EU has particular focus on matters of equality and non-discrimination based on colour, beliefs, religion, sexuality and gender.

  • The Rule of Law: Politicians and police are both equal with citizens in that everyone must obey the law.

  • Free Speech. Including the freedom to criticize government agencies and officials. But not the freedom to incite others to violent action, to be publicly racist (it falls foul of criminal law), or to damage lives with unfounded slander (civil law).

  • Separation of the Powers. The judiciary, government, military, police, parliament and a second chamber of parliament (such as the House of Lords in the UK) are all kept separate, providing the 'checks and balances' recommended by Machiavelli.₃

• Social Values:
  • Equality and Non-Discrimination: You can't inhibit others' natural rights merely because you don't agree with their actions. Race, color, sexuality and religion should all be non-issues, and ideally, no laws should need to be passed with specifically mention these things other than to enforce equality. For example, the Employment Equality Directive (2000). See "Special Religious Rights: EU Law" by Vexen Crabtree (2004).

  • Social Security. Governments manage the economy and welfare systems so that everyone has a support mechanism. A practical form of liberal humanism, this protects people against life's setbacks and grants the social stability that much of Europe has experienced for the past 50 years.

  • Protection from Corporate Abuse. Industries and commerce are regulated in order to prevent large-scale labour abuse, price-fixing and other modern-day evils that have resulted from globalisation. See "Multinational Corporations Versus Democracy" by Vexen Crabtree (2006).

• Charter of Fundamental Rights: (2000) - but not legally enforceable (see continued commentary).
  • Article 2: Everyone has the right to life. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty or executed.
  • Article 14: Everyone has the right to education and to have access to vocational and continuing training.
  • Article 23: Equality between men and women must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay.
  • Article 28: Workers and employers... have the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts [...] to take collective action [...] including strike action.
  • Article 32: The employment of children is prohibited.
  • Article 35: Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment.
  • Article 37: A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union.

  Selective summary provided by BBC News (2001)₄

There is no central document for Human Rights and Democratic Values in the EU. A constant series of cases in the 1970s and 1980s gradually built upon the idea that certain fundamental rights existed. The EU constitution was to enshrine these rights into a codified document, but has unfortunately been derailed.

“Unlike, for example, the German constitution, the Community Treaties contain no catalogue of basic rights. [...] It should be borne in mind, however, that the original objectives of the Community were nearly entirely contained in the economic sphere and that the Treaty provisions concerned economic matters only or matters directly related to them. Thus it was not thought necessary to include any reference to fundamental rights which were considered to be sufficiently guaranteed by the national laws of member states. However, it was soon seen that the interests of the Community spread so wide that it was not possible to disregard these rights.”

"European Union Law" by Margot Horspool (2003)

“The European Union and its Member States make significant efforts to promote, protect and preserve an open secular society with equal rights and opportunities. [... The] Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, must be respected. These values include respect for the uniqueness and freedom of the individual, equal opportunities for men and women (including the equal right of women to make individual choices in all walks of life) and equal treatment and non-discrimination on a number of grounds, including, for example, sexual orientation. Efforts to protect those principles may at times clash with the perceptions of certain individuals or faith groups.”

EU Monitoring Centre (2006)₅

Various documents are pertinent in the discussion of values and rights. They include:

• The Charter Text:

  From the website of the European Commission:

  1. Preamble
  2. Dignity
  3. Freedoms
  4. Equality
  5. Solidarity
  6. Citizen's rights
  7. Justice
  8. General Provisions
  EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000) which updates the Convention of Human Rights (1950). This was included as Part II of the EU constitution. The Charter combines and declares all the EU values and fundamental rights. It brings such values to the fore and clarifies them, but establishes nothing that was not already present in EU documents. It is not a legally binding but a "political declaration". "This means that it may be taken into account by individual national law courts and the European Court of Justice, but it is not legally binding." [BBC News (2003)₆]

  It enshrines political rights such as freedom of speech and thought, the rule of law. "The charter covers some economic and social rights that are not contained in the Convention on Human Rights, such as the right to good administration and workers' social rights, including the right to strike. It also responds to the challenges of new technology by including articles on bioethics and the protection of personal data". It bans reproductive cloning. It makes clear the effects of judgements made by the European Court of Human Rights in the 50 years since the Convention of Human Rights. [BBC News (2001)₄]

• Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU):

  “First codified in the Maastricht Treaty of 1991, [it] represents the most authoritative and clear statement of the constitutive liberal values of the Western community: '1. The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States.'

  In the preamble to the 1949 Statute of the Council of Europe, the founding governments reaffirmed 'their devotion to the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of their peoples and the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy'.”

  "International Socialization in Europe" by Schimmelfennig et al.₇

  Article 49 of the TEU specifically linked membership with these values. They are required to exist before a country can apply to join the EU, and in this way the European Community has acted as a powerful liberaliser of the entire European continent.

“These principles were reaffirmed in the so-called Copenhagen criteria of enlargement agreed at the European council of June 1993, which requires of prospective members the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities and 'the existence of a functioning market economy'.”

"International Socialization in Europe" by Schimmelfennig et al.₇

There are also less important values which are more akin to good manners.

• Neighbourliness. Western European countries consolidated a European community as a means to end the bitter conflicts associated with war and to forge a European identity. There is now "a sense that it is un-European (not to mention uncouth) to bear historical grudges"₈. To be a member of the EU, is to grow up into the European family. It is not right to avoid co-operation merely because you don't like your neighbours.

2. The State of the EU Constitution

18 countries in the European Union have endorsed the constitutional treaty, four more stand ready to do so₉. It has nonetheless been stopped in its tracks by the other five countries: two of them rejected it in public referendums, and Britain, Czech rep. and Poland have halted proceedings in the face of (probably correctly) perceived public opposition.

The constitution is not the threat to national power that some fear. It institutionalizes a strong role for national parliaments, shrinks the size of the European Commission, and does not transfer any power, as a whole, to Brussels₉. The entire constitution is largely a compendium of already-existing treaties. It would bring simplicity and increased transparency to the structure of the EU. There are intermittent signs and calls by various politicians for parts (or all) of it to be saved, but, until a way is found that is democratic and doesn't ignore public opposition, it is unlikely to bear much fruit.

3. Forms of European Unity

3.1. Multispeed Europe

Public opposition to the Constitution and what some call "enlargement fatigue" have led many to doubt the dream of an ever-closer union achieved through giant steps such as the Constitution. Instead a new Europe of varied and multiple accords is emerging, where countries sign up to parts of the whole as it suits them. Some countries clearly want more integration than others.

“In fact this is already happening. All [EU] members must participate in the single market, with its four freedoms of movement (of goods, services, labour and capital). Most of them are also members of NATO, but some are not; only 13 of the present 27 are in the euro; a different but overlapping 12 are in the Schengen passport-free travel zone, with the addition of three non-members; and just seven have signed the Prüm treaty governing the exchange of information among police forces. [...]

New, often poor members are invited on the basis that they do not take part in all EU activities right from the start: they are usually given long transition periods before benefiting in full from the union's four freedoms.”

The Economist (2007)₁₀

The faltered constitution project may have been too big of a step; the multi-speed approach is a much surer path towards the future.

3.2. The United States of Europe

In the 1980s and 1990s, "Helmut Kohl, Germany's chancellor, talked in unabashed terms about a United States of Europe"₁₁ and the Belgian prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt, wrote a booklet in 2005 by the same title. Such a unison is not on the horizon. I feel that the EU is best served by remaining a series of overlapping intergovernmental treaties as I have said above, but Luxembourg's prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, still thinks almost all EU projects should be seen as preparations for political union₁₁.

“Talk of 'core Europe', and various other slogans advanced by, amongst others, Jacques Delors and Valéry Giscard d'Estang, is almost as old as the institutions of Europe.”

The Economist (2007)₁₂

3.3. 200 Years of Ideas

Ideas of European unity are not new; they are more than a few generations old. In 1914, for example, Rudolf Kjellén promoted the idea of a European federation₁₃, led by Germany, as Germany had arisen as the most powerful industrial and commercial powerbase in Europe. In the nineteenth century most those who called for European unity (especially of the military and political kind) had in mind the fearsome threat of Russian dominance over Europe₁₄. But such ideas were once actively promoted by Russia itself and it was Alexander I in the early nineteenth century who first pushed for the conservative states of Europe to defend each other against political upheaval. Instead, what emerged was a Europe criss-crossed by accords, deals and treaties: with sets of alliances overlapping and competing.

“Alexander's grandiose schemes [...] had been seriously checked in 1815. The same fate awaited his suggestion in October 1818 of a 'general alliance' which should be open to all states and become the basis of a system of collective guarantee of the status quo by the contracting powers. [...] Nevertheless Alexander's idealism, however impractical, struck a chord which reverberated widely in the Europe of the years after the Napoleonic catastrophe. [...] In intellectual circles, perhaps even in ruling ones, agreement on the need to make Europe more united and endow it with some form of political organization, however rudimentary, was now for the first time a factor of some practical significance. In Germany the Catholic mystic Baader advocated a federation of the European states based on the Christianity which they all professed. In France Bergasse suggested the more limited expedient of a permanent alliance of sovereigns, while Saint-Simon sketched the plan of a great European society, democratic and parliamentary, of which the nucleus was to be formed by an alliance between France and Britain.”

"The Ascendancy of Europe 1815-1914" by M S Anderson (1985)₁₅

Apart from Alexander in the early 19th century, Giuseppe Mazzini later floated ideas in 1871 that sound much like a prototype of the European Union; once countries developed into free states, he prophesized, they would unite into some form of association₁₆. In 1882 the French philosopher Ernest Renan wrote: "The nations are not something eternal. They had their beginnings and they will end. A European confederation will very probably replace them"₁₇.

But all these previous ideas based on political unity, alliances of leading families, and military alliances; failed to create stability or failed to get started as serious movements at all. Europe was then the center of the two world wars, before eventually an economic community united Europe and ended the conflicts.

4. The Benefits of the European Union

4.1. The Euro

The practical benefits to citizens of the Euro are well known. There is no difficulty in exchanging currency at airports, no wallets with incompatible coins and notes and prices are directly comparable from country to country. Bank accounts are more manageable, transfers are easier and costs are more transparent as they all occur at easily comparable rates.

“The euro has clearly boosted intra-EU trade, by somewhere between 5% and 15%, according to the OECD. It has also been a spectacular success from a technical point of view, establishing itself not just as a viable currency but as the only plausible rival to the dollar. For example, it now accounts for 25% of global foreign-currency reserves. Yet the euro's broader economic impact has been limited because of its members' failure to liberalise enough. As the OECD puts it in its most recent report on the region, "insufficient flexibility prevents the euro area reaping the full benefits of economic and monetary union."”

The Economist (2007)₁₀

4.2. The Successful Promotion of Democracy and Achievement of Regional Peace and Stability

From the way it is taught in schools, many would think that European History could correctly be called a military history of war and division. Many of its countries have had centuries-long series of wars between themselves and their neighbours; culminating in the two world wars. But, as of the founding of the European Community fifty years ago, the political and cultural environment has completely changed. European multilateralism has commandeered regional peace and stability of the kind never seen before. The main push towards this was in the frantic activity of the EC from 1957. From then, the benefits of joining the fledging EU became so apparent, that a country would change its political institutions and character in order to have a chance of joining.

The Copenhagen Criteria for membership include democracy, free market economy, observance of human and minority rights, and political stability₁₈. "Greece (1981), Spain and Portugal (both in 1986) joined only after they had discarded their previous military governments and dictatorships"₁₈.

“The prospect of joining played a critical part in ensuring a smooth transition from dictatorships to democracy in Greece, Spain and Portugal. More recently it has transformed the east European countries as they moved from communist central planning to liberal democracy. The countries of the western Balkans have been pacified and stabilised after the bloody 1990s thanks mainly to their hopes of EU membership. And Turkey has made wholesale changes in its politics, economics and society largely to boost its chances of joining. Indeed, judged in terms of success in exporting its values to its backyard, the EU has done much better with its neighbours than the United States has with central and south America, largely because of the carrot of enlargement.”

The Economist (2007)₁₀

There is also the fact the liberal markets themselves tend to reduce violence between neighbours. 18th and 19th century political theorists have long observed that if two countries become closer economically, they are less likely to engage in war. Montesquieu (1748) believed that commerce “weakened the grip of xenophobia and bigotry [...] and since '[t]wo nations that trade with each other become reciprocally dependent ... [t]he natural effect of commerce is to lead to peace.' ”₁₉. Even such great minds may not have predicted the accuracy of their statements nor the European-wide scale on which they would one day apply.

4.3. Strengthened Democracy Against Lawless Multinationals

My page "Multinational Corporations Versus Democracy" (2006) examines the problems faced by national governments in legislating industries that are dominated by multinationals who can simply move production and manpower from one country to another in order to evade new laws (even human rights ones). I believe this failure of national-based democratic government is overcome through multi-national democratic institutions such as the EU. The conclusion reads:

“Massive corporations can outmanoeuvre governments and therefore evade the law. Multinationals organisations like the UN and EU can fight back. The heads of large companies have massive power over staff, employment, industry, national economies, the environment and yet are not elected nor publicly accountable for their actions. Supra-national organisations, staffed by those on the pay roll of elected governments, empowers democracy with renewed control. National democratic consolidation of power is required in order to reign in multinational corporations that are presently beyond the law because they can avoid the laws of any one particular government.

“Nation-states, some argue, are too small to be able to influence global change, and too large to respond effectively to the pressures for increased flexibility and competitiveness, or as Giddens put it 'too small to solve the big problems, but also too large to solve the small ones'.”

"A Globalizing World? Culture, Economics, Politics" Held (2004)₂₀

We clearly need multinational governmental bodies to control multinational corporations. Not only will this bring capitalism back under the protective arms of democracy, but it will also solve the second problem identified by Held and Giddens: It will allow national governments to concentrate more on the small problems of national well-being.”

"Multinational Corporations Versus Democracy" by Vexen Crabtree (2006)

5. The EU is in Crises

5.1. The EU is Always in Crises

The EU was born in crises, as a result of crises (war). Every decade has seen prominent politicians pronounce the EU is now facing "it's most serious crises yet". The Suez Crises (1956) and the 'crises' that resulted from the French National Assembly's rejection of the proposed European Defence Community in 1954 both resemble the combined Middle East 'crises' and the 'crises' of the Dutch and French rejection of the Constitution.

Following on from these two founding crises were a series of doom-laden prophesies from academics and professionals of every calibre.

“By 1980 some academics warned about the possible disintegration of the EEC and even leading members of EC institutions openly spoke of the dismal state that Europe was in. At the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Rome Treaty, in 1982, the president of the European Parliament compared the Community to a 'feeble cardiac patient whose condition is so poor that he cannot even be disturbed by a birthday party' (Lagerfeld 1990)”

"Origins and Evolution of the European Union" by Desmond Dinan (2006)₂₁

After that dismal diatribe, the pronouncements continued throughout the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. "Jacques Delors, who was president of the European Commission from 1985 to 1994, says that the present "crises" is the worst in the project's history"₁₀. And again in 2005 Jeane-Claude Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg, which then held the EU presidency, said "the EU is not in crises: it is in deep crisis"₁₀. The EU is always in crises, just like crime is always getting worse, immigrants more dastardly, the weather deteriorating and employment evaporating.

There is something psychological about the need to give column inches to the dramatic.

“Just as common as the ego-driven feeling that now, around us, are important changes, is the feeling that brooding, significant upset awaits on the horizon. It seems to be a universal, negative human apprehension that we think that historically-important catastrophe is threatening us.

“[The] media emphasizes the negative and pessimistic side of events and therefore creates perceptual crises of faith where no real crises exists”

"Global Trends 2005" by Michael Mazarr₂₂

These feelings of the importance and foreboding of present events are shared by professional sociologists and analysts, who in addition to the typical Human desire to be at the centre of events, also have professional interest in highlighting the perils of the present time, and hence the relevance of their own skills, warnings and teachings.”

"The Importance of Current Events is Amplified by our Egos" by Vexen Crabtree (2005)

5.2. Popular Disillusionment with the EU

Most modern democracies have become so gray and functional that they do not inspire the population to actively like or dislike them. People always complain, but, when it comes to action it is rare that the machinations of central government are interesting enough to interfere with. This could be highly positive, if democracy did not require the interaction of the masses.

“Democracy requires the informed consent of the governed, and will not last if voters can't be bothered. Europe's leaders also fret that apathy is anti-European. Popular indifference, they fear, leaves the European Union's institutions vulnerable to the gusts of popular indignation. Their worry is understandable. The polling evidence, for what it is worth, shows that people who say they know a lot about the EU tend to support it. Those who know nothing and care less tend to be Eurosceptics. [...]

Voter turnout has fallen in every election to the European Parliament since the institution was created. In the most recent one, in 2004, it slumped below 50% - a lower rate than India's parliamentary polls.”

The Economist (2007)₂₃

But some see that this comes and goes. Prof. Margot Horspool in her law book on the EU, states:

“Ever since the European Community's beginnings, periods of enthusiasm and frantic activity have alternated with periods of 'coasting' or even sometimes virtual stagnation. After the initial thrust in the years after 1957, disillusionment set in, together with a growth in awareness of national identity and importance. In part, this was because the initial primary aim of the Community, the prevention of war between the partners, appeared to have been achieved.”

"European Union Law" by Margot Horspool (2003)₁₈

Now that stability has been achieved the growing generations of its populace no longer have a common cause with which to unite behind. Not only that, but the EU has become a scapegoat. Governments blame (their own) European treaties for the restrictions they feel on themselves, and the populace (knowing even less about the EU than they do about their own governments) are taken in by sensationalist claims in the news. Government failure to educate people about the realities of the Union have led to the populace responding to outspoken and dramatic Eurosceptics. Such government failure to educate was apparent in the referendums for the Constitution held in France and the Netherlands. The latter did not campaign at all, and President Chirac sent copies of the entire constitution, written as it is in monstrous legal-speak, to all French voters₁₀.

Jacques Delors who we have already heard from above (president of the European Commission from 1985 to 1994), says that "there is no dream, no vision that strikes a chord with today's European citizens in the way that reconcilement and an end to war did 50 years ago. Most of today's leaders, he complains, devote their time to attacking Brussels and all its works, not to spreading the word about the EU's achievements"₁₀.

6. EU Immigration and Internal Migration

6.1. Free Migration is Beneficial and Increasingly Essential

Countries in the EU such as Britain, Sweden and Eire, that have opened their borders fully to EU's new members such as Poland, Bulgaria and Romania, have benefited from it more than others. History has shown that a liberalised work force and reduced barriers against employment benefit economies and stability in the long term. This means that the more barriers there are to people from one country freely finding employment in a neighbouring country, the worse off the whole region is over time.

Europe as a whole requires net immigration in order to maintain its industries, pensions and social structure. This is because the population increase has slowed and many countries would be seeing population declines if not for their open borders. The result is an ageing native population whose pensions are paid by newcomers. The fertility rate required to maintain the present population is 2.1 children.

“The fertility rate in the EU is 1.47 - well below replacement. By 2010, deaths there are expected to start outnumbering births, so from that point immigration will account for more than all its growth. [...] The fertility rate in Italy and Spain is 1.28, which, without immigration, would cause the number of Spaniards and Italians to halve in 42 years.”

The Economist (2006)₂₅

Links:

• "The Population of the Earth: Explosions, Pensions and Cultural War" by Vexen Crabtree (2006)

• "UK Immigration, Economics and Pensions" by Vexen Crabtree (2011)

6.2. A Combined European Border

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland are all in the Schengen passport-free travel zone, making internal travel easy and practical. Few remaining borders are prison-like, but it is still inefficient to maintain internal borders when there could be merely one EU outline. If every country pooled its border police and the external borders of the EU were staffed multilaterally, everyone would gain from both increased efficiency and a larger overall measure of security from the outside (non-European) world. National states would still employ local forces for local enforcement and policing of immigration law (and for training), and as a quick reaction force for immigration-related crime within the national border. But overall passport and refugee management staff should be European and collective.

The present system is failing, especially in the new enlarged Union. For example, Fontex is attempting to shore up contributions from EU members to police Malta's southern (watery) borders, a project known as Operation Nautilis II, against illegal immigration from North Africa, especially from Libya. But even this limited, specific weakspot is not given appropriate attention. Even nearby countries such as Italy do not contribute.₂₆. The EUs new members struggle to cope. Prof. Monar elaborates on the reasons why the new entrants, now defining the Union's Eastern border, undermine EU immigration policy. Problems include under-manning; in both Hungary and Poland actual staff numbers of border guards in 2001 fell around 30% short, and Slovenia in 2002 had only appointed about half those it promised in its Schengen Action Plan₂₇.

“For some Member States (especially current frontline Schengen countries like Austria, Germany and Italy) ensuring a high degree of border security through sophisticated and extensive checks is clearly a central objective in the JHA area. The Union's new Eastern European Members States are not likely to share this approach fully. [... It] entails major costs in form of a disruption of relations with ethnic minorities on the other side of the border, political relations with neighbouring countries and well-established cross-border trade.”

Prof. Jörg Monar (2004)₂₇

The establishment of a strong Union Border force would eradicate such nationalistic interests and national manning problems, and allow for an effective common European foreign policy on immigration and asylum seekers, meaning that one countries' half-hearted porous border does not undermine its neighbour's expensive and strong border. The European bloc as a whole could reaction to sudden increases in migration over particular borders, rather than such surges overwhelming a countries' individual border guard. It would no longer become a disadvantage to be an 'edge' country and being forced to foot an unfair percentage of a European border. With a combined force, all countries would contribute fair quantities of staff and equipment to a joint effort.

7. The Benefits of the Future

7.1. The Power of Solidarity

The benefits of EU consolidarity means that multinationalism should often trump national interests. This means that when the EU acts together as a whole, the advantage to all of its members is greater than if countries maintained their own unilateral national policies. If a nation combined its efforts in (say) ten endeavours within consolidated EU plans, it would benefit enormously even if in a few of those areas this means that the norm which emerges is not one that is beneficial. It is like any collection of humans: If you group together, the whole group has more capability, even though sometimes all individuals will feel that peer pressure has stopped them doing something they wanted. Anyway, needless to say that at present the EU is only united on a few, mostly economic, points. Great rewards can be gained in the future if further choices are made at a EU level rather than a national one, especially in energy and foreign policy. The Economist ran an article on this in 2008 with regards to Russian antagonism:

“The European Union will be heeded by Russia only when it speaks with one voice. That was the universal battle cry in Brussels as EU officials and diplomats hurried back from their summer holidays to prepare for an emergency EU summit on the Georgian crises, called by the current French presidency for September 1st. And faced with the sobering sight of tanks trundling around Europe's backyard, there was equally loud agreement among national politicians that their usual squabbling over the right attitude towards Russia harms the common interests of the 27-member union. [...]

A November 'power audit' by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), a think-tank, argued that Europe was throwing away what should be its considerable leverage over Russia. After all, the EU's population is more than three times that of Russia, and its wealth more than a dozen times greater. The EU depends heavily on Russian energy, but the flip-side is that it is Russia's biggest market for gas (indeed, for all Russian exports). If the 27 EU countries dealt with Russia as one, they would surely have less to fear from Moscow hawks.”

The Economist (2008)₂₈

7.2. Standardization of Corporate Tax

It is a Governments' job to protect people against forces beyond their control, so, legislating on working conditions is appropriate. But political interference in normal market forces isn't democratic. It is light totalitarianism. One way in which politicians control and skew market forces is by setting corporate tax rates. The standardisation of corporate tax over multiple countries has many benefits. "European politicians began puzzling over tax harmonisation in 1962"₂₉:

“Now European Union plans for a common tax base have begun to gain pace and may even take wing, in spite of several countries' efforts to stop them. On May 2nd the European Commission gave an upbeat report on its progress towards legislation on a common consolidated corporate tax base. László Kocács, the EU's tax commissioner, said a proposal would be ready in the first half of 2008 and tentatively suggested that a common base could be in place some time "after 2010". Under the commission's rough plans, companies would adopt a tax base for their EU-wide activities, rather than face a tangle of 27 different regimes. [...] Many of the details, such as the delicate issue of how to split revenues between countries, are still to be hammered out. But one red line has been drawn: national exchequers will continue to set their own rates.”

The Economist (2007)₂₉

The benefits are numerous. (1) Companies would simply "adopt a tax base for their EU-wide activities, rather than face a tangle of 27 different regimes"₂₉. This would massively decrease the accounting costs for multinational companies. Accounting is one of those non-productive expenses that wastes money. With standardized rates, overall efficiency will increase. (2) Politicians would have one less tool to artificially manipulate markets. (3) European companies would be more competitive globally as overheads decreased. (4) The single-market would benefit₂₉. (5) Less overheads means lower prices for consumers.

But implementing this is difficult as Governments such as Irelands' will not want to lose a tool they use (low corporate tax) to attract business. General centralisation-phobia will also impede progress. Here comes another useful application of a potential multispeed Europe approach: "A core group could advance" and standardize rates. This would grant fractions of the benefits listed above and prove the principle. But, countries such as Ireland would temporarily have an even bigger advantage, so, there is an argument that all 27 EU countries should be compelled to proceed together. In either case, the benefits of corporate tax normalisation are clear: the toes that are stepped on are only the ones who were politically manipulating the market.

8. Religion In Europe: Secularisation, Tolerance and Freedom

8.1. Belief in God

Over the last 60 years, religion in Europe has seen a strong decline. On average throughout the 27 EU countries, only half of its people believe in God₃₀. There is much variation from country to country. Only 16% of the populace of Estonia belief in God, but 95% do in Malta. Scandinavian countries are highly atheist. Two main social groups are particularly prone to belief in God; those over 55 years old and those whose education did not proceed beyond the 15-year-old stage. Finally, females are more likely to believe in God than males.₃₀

• "Religion and Intelligence: Belief in God Correlates Negatively With Education" by Vexen Crabtree (2007)

8.2. The Waning of Religion in a Modern Continent

Much of Europe no longer observes any religion. That which remains is preferred to be kept indoors and private₃₂. Yet although only half of the population of Europe believe in God, most still put down an official religion on paper. This is a common trend amongst secularising peoples, as people forget what religion is about. In Europe, the bigger the religious institution, the quicker it is likely to be shrinking.

“When asked what values they "cherish above all", respondents overwhelmingly chose "peace" (52%), "respect for human life" came second (43%). Democracy got 24%. Way down at the bottom – 11th out of 11 – was "religion" with a meagre 7%.”

National Secular Society (2007)₃₁

My collection of statistics on the UK highlight the loss of power and influence of religious ideas in Britain. Less than half of the British people believe in God, and two thirds have no connection to religion. "Between 1979 and 2005, half of all Christians stopped going to church on a Sunday".

8.3. France

France is a prime example of the types of dynamic battles occurring between the ancient legal monoliths of religion, and a society that no longer shares its traditional values.

“NUMBER OF ATHEISTS IN FRANCE RISES AT AN UNPRECEDENTED RATE
A poll published this week by the French newspaper Le Monde shows that the number of people describing themselves as atheists has risen to 31 per cent -- from 23 per cent in 1994. The poll also shows that only half the population of France now considers itself to be Catholic. In the early 1980s it was 80 per cent. The paper declared that France "is no longer a Catholic country".

"In its institutions, but also in its mentalities, France is no longer a Catholic country," wrote Frederic Lenoir, editor in chief of Le Monde des Religions.

The poll showed that only 10 per cent go to church regularly mainly to Sunday mass or christenings. Extraordinarily, of the 51 per cent who still call themselves Catholics, only half said they believed in God. Many said they described themselves as Catholics because it was a family tradition. Le Monde des Religions cited varied reasons for the decline, including the rural exodus, changing values and the rise of individualism. [...]

Full story here: www.cwnews.com/...recnum=48546”

National Secular Society newsletter (2007)₃₃

8.4. Religion in Scandinavia

The standard nordic religious structure combines a secular (non-religious) society with an anachronistic state-backed established church, for example the Lutheran church of Finland. Most people sign up for this church in order to obtain clergy for weddings and funerals. So, although 85% of Finns sign up, it "need not imply a deep belief in the tenets of Martin Luther"₃₅. The local sociologist Kimmo Ketola says that "Finns are neither very attached to religion, nor very opposed to it"₃₅. This is evidenced by the explosive popularity of a website designed to make it easy to resign from the state church. Set up by The Freethinkers of Tampere in 2003, by 2007 over 60 thousand people had used the site to resign and in total the Lutheran Church lost 2.6% of its adherents from 2000-2006₃₆. Over a generation of 60 years at the current rate, the Church will lose nearly a third of its membership by 2060.

“The Freethinkers of Tampere created a web site, Eroakirkosta.fi ("eroa kirkosta" roughly translates to "resign from the church"), in 2003 to assist people to resign from the state church to further the goal of separation of state and church, and to promote a secular society. The web site became a success; in 2006 79% of all resignations went through the site. The same figure was 69% in 2005, and 39% in 2004.”

www.eroakirkosta.fi (2007)₃₆

With distinct pagan roots in Nordic warrior religions Nordics were never subjugated by Christian armies and the Inquisition never gained a hold₃₇. They are now thoroughly secular societies. The sociologist of religion, Steve Bruce, says that Scandinavia became secular largely because the established churches represented the élite, "the masses found themselves little served by a state church which drew its professionals from the upper classes and advanced the ideological perspectives of the socially dominant"₃₈. I have chartered the massive decline in religiosity in the UK, but Norway has much lower Church attendance₃₉.

On top of that, Scandinavia, in particular Norway, has cultivated and spawned some powerful anti-religious movements. The Black Metal movement that grew to infamy in the 1990s hit the national newspapers with almost one-hundred church burnings, and espoused a venomously anti-Christian doctrine. Its adherents worshipped Odin, the Norse gods, and Satan. They wanted not only the continued decline of Christianity, but a revival of Nordic paganism. In addition, Scandinavia has a healthy population of LaVeyan Satanists.₄₀

In Norway a government-appointed commission in 2006 proposed that the Lutheran Church be disestablished, similar "to changes made by the neighbouring (Lutheran) Church of Sweden, in 2000", the UK's National Secular Society reported:

“CHURCH OF NORWAY VOTES TO DISESTABLISH ITSELF
The Lutheran Church of Norway has voted to separate itself from the state after 500 years of establishment. Sixty-three of 85 synod delegates voted that the church should no longer be referred to in the country's constitution as a State or national church. The synod wants the church to be founded on a separate act passed by parliament. The general synod said it should itself assume all church authority now resting with the king and the government.

"The synod's decision is historic", said Jens Petter Johnsen, director of the Church of Norway national council. "What matters is the relationship between Church and people, not between Church and State. We will do our utmost to strengthen the service of the church and with our people."

[...] The changes in the State Church system will require a revision of the country's constitution and some officials see 2013 as the earliest date. The State-Church system was established in Norway in 1537, when the Danish king endorsed the Lutheran reformation.”

National Secular Society newsletter (2006 Dec 01)

8.5. Eastern Europe

It is generally believed that Eastern Europe is more religious than Western Europe, but, the truth is more complicated.

“The Eurostat survey found significant differences between individual member states. Religion is most important to the Maltese (88 percent), Poles (87 percent) as well as Cypriots, Greeks and Romanians (86 percent each). By contrast more than 70 percent of the population in Belgium and the Czech Republic regard religion as insignificant. In Germany the old East-West-divide is still reflected in religious attitudes. Whereas 53 percent of the population in the West say that religion is important, the figure is only 26 percent in the former Communist East. [...] ”

National Secular Society newsletter (2007)₃₁

“Religion in central and eastern Europe is waning - and plagued by scandal. [...] Secularism is shriveling some churches, especially mainstream Protestant ones. Others have retreated into steamy nationalist ghettos.”

The Economist (2007)₁₀

8.6. European Law and Values on Religion

Of the Union's 27 states, according to Wikipedia, only five have an official state religion. Cyprus (Cypriot Orthodox Church), Denmark (Danish National Church), Greece (Church of Greece), Malta (Roman Catholic Church) and England (Church of England)₄₁. Some states have close relationships with various religious bodies that are not enshrined in law.

European Law institutionalizes equality of religion, gender and sexuality (TEU Articles 6, 49), and Europe's democracies enshrine many other individual human rights, which for the most part are given priority over religious authority in order to stem human rights abuses. Rights include freedom of religion and freedom from religion (UK: Equality Act, 2006, section 44, Europe: EC, 2006, p30). This means people have the right to whatever beliefs they want, and to call themselves whatever religon they want, whereas historically apostasy and heresy have been punishable crimes. Thus, human rights in Europe has limited traditional religion. Religions in Europe are not free to discriminate against each other; anti-discrimination laws mean that employers cannot enforce any particular workplace religion₄₂ and are sometimes forced to accommodate a persons' religious beliefs as long as it is practical to do so (this is especially the case in some countries such as the UK), and in others many private and local agreements allow some religious people special privileges at work. But the overall attitude is that, due to the multiple religions that make up the European Union, Law cannot impose religious rules. The ethos that brings most tolerance and equality, therefore, is strict secularism. This goes to its extreme in countries like France, where, according to the EU Monitoring Center, "religion is very rarely taken into consideration within companies' diversity initiatives and the majority of the population would seem to adhere to the idea that religion belongs to the private sphere of life"₄₃.

When it comes to religion, the following values and customs are pertinent to keep in mind, in Europe:

• Religion is a private affair, and a personal choice.
• There is no compulsion in religion under law.
• People have a freedom to change their beliefs (to convert) whenever they want.
• Western culture is critical and skeptical, and religious ideas are frequently questioned and challenged.
• Freedom of speech overrides religious sensibilities about blasphemy.
• People attempt to accommodate religious practices were practical. This is enshrined in European law.

There are secularising trends towards some of the following areas of tolerance, in a multi-faith Europe:

• State buildings and events should not support any particular religion.
• Public events, especially more important ones, should avoid emphasis on any particular religion.
• Religious education in schools should be optional.
• Religious theories should not be taught in schools as fact, not even by faith schools₄₄.

These values ensure that official culture does not indirectly discriminate against anyone by enforcing one brand of faith over another, and ensures people are free to pursue their own religions at will, but, not at the expense of other people's freedoms.