Concerning the development of Europe, even hard-line optimists, as well as any other civilian, were highly distracted a few times in the past 20 years. The present Europe achieved some noteworthy goals: the Euro, the institutional organisations, the dozens of new members; however, there’s a hangover ruling the continent for some time now. The big hopes of 1989 quickly evaporated. Of course, many of these hopes are due to the pathetic first hours, the electrifying moments. I remember well my days as a young reporter, when I was sitting one night in the cellar of the theatre Laterna Magica during the Prague Autumn revolution. Vaclav Havel and Jiri Hajek were on stage. A man entered the scene, whispering something into Havels ear. Then Havel said: “I just came to know, that the entire polit bureau of the central commitee of the CPC stepped down.” Newsmakers and revolutionaries lay arm in arm. A few days before, the Berlin wall had broken down. Shortly after, the Romanians marshalled Nicolae Ceaucescu to a shooting command. And at some point, Boris Jelzin stood on a tank with a megaphone and ran the rebels out of Russia. What an important time.

The events were prepared by a “European idea” which glare all the more splendidly, as it did not have to prove its case. Middle Europe as historical space fascinated intellectuals and after the fall of the iron curtain, the Twenty- and Thirtysomethings sat down in trains with scruffy patina and the smell of odd cigarette brands and went to Prague, Wroclaw, Kaliningrad.

This Western idea of Middle Europe was carried by a melancholic love to brittled box-type windows, crumbling lime plaster and mossy shingles. Meanwhile, those who were living in these houses did rather dream of plastic windows with certificated impermeability, insulating plaster and mass produced bathroom flagging.

The East was for the West some sort of dream to flee from postmodernism, of which they got weary. [Yet it would soon become a short time nightmare rather than a dream, as suddenly an old ethnic insanity sprawled over the historical regions.] The West was for the East the dream of consumerism and wealth. The East was for the West a contrast to some sort of dimwit-village-like attitude, which Düsseldorf stood for. Not few of the East Germans would have taken this city for paradise. The East was for the West like a big open air museum with happy, loose habitants like chicken on an organic farm, who were lucky not yet to be alienated by Western commerce, advertisement and consumerism. After all we wanted this history park to continue to exist. But for some inscrutable reasons its habitants wanted to be like us.

What followed was a rather paradox situation in 2004 when ten members entered the European Union- eight of them Middle and East European states. West Europe did not recognize it as meaningful at all, nor seemed it grand after all. At best they would call it to be a risky economic adventure. East European people on the other hand sensed very well that the supranational entity- to which they would soon belong- regards their entry rather as a technical event. No pathos on any of the sides. Nevertheless the 1st Mai 2004 marks on first triumphal culminating point of an almost unbelievable story of success! All junior members of the European Union obtained adequate stabile democratic institutions, adapted their administrative regime to that of the European Union and let politics emerge that suit the political professionalism common in modern Western democracies, if anyhow here and there might appear some vexing corruption as well as above-average instability. All this would have been impossible without the magnetism of the European Union.

But nevertheless the European Idea lost verve just in the moment, when it would have had to become reality. Even the “old” Western Europe was plagued by self-doubts. Just remembering the second half of the 90s: Eventually and during long-lasting discussions in Brussels, the details of the introduction of the Euro has been negotiated. Eleven out of 15 EU-governments has been ruled by social-democratic politicians. Blair, Schröder, Jospin, Persson and all the rest of them. They all presided over modern centre-left-governments. For one very historical moment European statesmen was harmonized – nor they has been usually more discordant. It seemed possible to erect a new level of the supranational entity in form of the “European Union”, a new kind of “statehood” and as if Europe will become a prototypical model. It seemed as if Europe was a contrast program to the neoliberal US-American market capitalism as well as to the dictatorial state capitalism emerging in Asia at that time.

However,without any good reasons, a new and sclerotic period for the European Integration started. Populations began to favourite isolationist policies. Political elites met concerns and put up new fences and – even worst – they stoke a sour note of small-mindedness. The idea of the double-nationality of European citizens – at the same time citizens of nation state and citizens of Europe – stayed a nice imagination (!!!). Dissipating one’s energies in the European constitutional process till the French and the Dutch refused the new EU-constitution. Suddenly the European welfare-system has no longer been seen as a model, that differs Europe in a positive way from other parts of the world, but as a disadvantage of the location. And also European population started feeling disheartened. Economic instabilities spread, social inequalities re-increased and at this point many people stopped perceiving the European Union as an instrument to develop a new and progressive welfare-system. In contrast – people became aware of the arrangement, which has contributed to wreck down the former welfare-system. And the neighbour - the rival of business – personified by the “polish plumber”. Many equate the synonym “Europe” with the elitist association that have a hand in complicating normal peoples’ lives. Those who support the European Union did it not without referring to the pragmatic profitableness. Those few, who still highlight with fervency the historic chance and the egregious innovation in form of this new supranational governance, could soon be counted on the fingers of one hand. Vital European Politics was not emerging. The elections to the European Parliament are usually abused to balance accounts – most in a quite populist way – with the particular national politic discourses. The representatives of this kind of Europe – the president of the European Commission, commissioners – were chosen by the governments of the nation states. However European population voted, their influence on the composition of this “European Government” was very small. This lack of democratic legitimacy has been translated directly into a lack of identification of the citizens with this Europe. The wave of negative votes for the EU Reform Treaty finally drove the European project to the standoff.   

Enthusiasm – not even a bit, although the European Union has however gained acceptance in the last few month. Especially in times of the global economic and financial crisis, the EU is often and rightly perceived as protection – in particular the European Monetary Union. Everyone could clearly see, that small national economies with their own currency are defencelessly exposed to the downswing of the economies, especially when they are confronted to some speculative attacks besides. Simultaneously this Monetary Union provides inequalities. Germany has improved its competitive position during the last years compared to other EU-countries – but nowadays they cannot counter with currency depreciation. In consequence, particularly crisis-ridden countries like Spain suffer. Otherwise these troubled countries would live through even more difficult times without the Euro. If they still had national currencies, they would fall into a bottomless abyss. Even the British pound reached a historical low and is only of little value of 1,1 Euro. Without the Euro, countries like Spain and Greece would be at risk to follow suit the Icelandic “model”.

But today this “advantages” are almost like a metaphor for the pragmatic agreement to the European Union. Most citizens perceive the EU as the better out of two bad alternatives. And citizens of other EU states are not considered as “compatriots” of one community, but as people, you have connected to because of some reciprocal advantages. Besides they do not really share common ideas. Europe has seen better day.