After Eurogoblin: Why is English not the lingua franca of European integration?

The free movement of goods, persons, services and capital has been popular in England, at least when headed towards the European Continent, but the free flow of thoughts less so in the reverse direction, if threatening to enrich Britain.



Have you ever seen a pious goblin? Me neither, until Eurogoblin took the “Finding Europe’s Mojo” motto seriously and posted a short essay (but long blog post) called The Christian Roots of European Unity.



I join Vihar Georgiev (of European Union Law) in his wish that many people will take the time to read the post because it raises important questions and Eurocentric (of The European Citizen) in his assessment: Brilliant post!

For now, I am going to make some remarks on languages and culture(s) in relationship to European integration.




Languages and culture(s)


English has become a lingua franca for commerce, as well as the second language for university and college students all over Europe. There are also great publishers, such as Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press and Palgrave Macmillan, with titles on the history, politics and law of European integration.




However, generally EUSSR myths, disinformation and constant sowing of discord seem to be much more in demand in the United Kingdom than interest in languages and cultures next door. The culture just is not there.

Beyond their mother tongue, many European students are limited to the offer in English, so their world view is formed by what they can access.



The roots and motives of European integration remain almost invisible, if left to British media (mainstream and social), politicians and expressions from an uninformed public.



The British are constantly hammered with myths that the UK was taken into the “Common Market”, without giving the people a choice, and that the EEC has surreptitiously turned into a European Union super-state. First of all, membership in the three European Communities was approved in a referendum in 1975. Secondly, every Treaty since the Treaty of Rome has visibly highlighted the quest for “ever closer union”. With slightly different wording, the idea of a future common destiny was laid out in the 1951 Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community. The Schuman declaration (1950) described the ECSC as “a first step in the federation of Europe”. Thirdly, in the international arena the European Union is almost as weak as Poland under the 'liberum veto', and almost as impossible to reform (multiple unanimity rules).



The “integration by stealth" myth is bollocks, despite daily disinformation. Actually, Britain joined a project of ever deeper integration, but has been in constant breach of the spirit of its commitment. Sir Humphrey’s parody of UK foreign policy in Yes, Minister (on YouTube) contains more than a grain of truth.



Martin Kettle describes the consequences for the UK of this linguistic and cultural “blindness” in The Guardian: Trapped in the Anglosphere, we’ve lost sight of next door.

In addition, one could remark, this tunnel vision affects increasing numbers of young Europeans for whom English is their only foreign language.



These are some of the reasons why the Council of Europe’s annual European Day of Languages on 26 September is important.



Antonia on the Euonym blog (Talking about the EU) tells us that the European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, and the UK Representation has been joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Join the event page on Facebook, spread the word through social media and personal contacts, begin preparing your blog posts and start learning a new language.

The culture of European integration has often been nurtured with more thought and understanding in other European languages. Especially in the United Kingdom and the other later entrants among the EU member states (including my own, Finland), there is a need to look for sources beyond the confines of England and English.

Why not put free movement of thought on your agenda?




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.

It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:

I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.

This sceptred isle or Sallust? The British are Europeans – but unaware for how long?

In an earlier post we discussed the absence of a (modern) codified Constitution and the notion of citizenship (instead, subjects of the Crown) in the United Kingdom. Many of the sources, features and procedures of the British constitutional and political system are antiquated. Who in his right mind would today resist a codified Constitution, institute a Monarchy or establish a House of Lords?



The Parliament in Westminster (House of Commons) was an important model internationally, but the first-past-the-post system does not lead to fair representation. The domestic climate in the UK regarding modern fundamental rights has been hesitant, when not outright hostile, as is current public opinion on the European Union.

Legally protected fundamental rights for citizens (or everyone within the jurisdiction) against encroachment by government are cornerstones of modern liberal political entities.



All EU member states are parties to the mother of human rights in Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR; CETS No. 005 including amending protocols), which the European Union itself has pledged to accede to.



The EU also houses the next generation daughter, the more comprehensive and modern Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, legally binding since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force on 1 December 2009.



Britain, Poland and the Czech Republic have blotted their reputations by distancing themselves from the community of values formed around the EU Charter, but the Charter will still bind the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union (Article 51), offering legal protection to all citizens of the EU, including the people of the laggard nations.



Looking at present and future European relations through the prism of the Battle of Britain, totally negating that Britain and the British have representation in the European Union, painting eurozone bank stress tests as pure self-deception, rejoicing at a member state (Hungary) telling the EU and the IMF to “bugger off” [until it needs massive refinancing next year], transport of joy on ConservativeHome at the absence of the EU flag when president Nicolas Sarkozy visited London (via Jason O’Mahony), a proposal to repeal the Act on Britain’s [reduced] share in financing the European Union (via Euromove) are but brief glimpses of constant sowing of discord and disinformation, intended to get the United Kingdom out of the EU or from engaging constructively even “with” (instead of in) Europe.



Much of English discourse on European integration shares the Taliban feeling that they have nothing to gain and nothing to learn from (the rest of) the civilised world. However, are these feelings of superiority well founded, when we look at the constitutional and political system, or the relationship to citizenship and fundamental rights?



Is Shakespeare’s beautiful poetry, “this sceptred isle, ... This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England” (written in approximately 1595), really a healthy philosophical foundation for the fundamental rights, or the future security and prosperity of UK subjects and EU citizens in a globalising world?



For as long as it takes for British EU citizens as a whole to become willing and able to create a constructive and mutually learning relationship in the European Union, at least the rest of the 501 million inhabitants of the EU have cause to reflect on Sallust’s wise words in the Jugurthine War about the effects of discord on political constructs:

Nam concordia parvae res crescunt, discordia maxumae dilabuntur.

The British are Europeans; they are in Europe. When is awareness going to set in? Is Sallust going to age another two millennia before it happens?




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your pertinent comment appears.

It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:

I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.



The European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Spread the word and start preparing for the event.

Nosemonkey and Jon Worth: Founding Fathers of Euroblogging

In a blog entry Jon Worth recalled that his Euroblog turned five years old (a venerable age in the online world).



At the same time, Jon reminded that in the world of Euroblogging in English, only Nosemonkey had been at it longer.



Both jonworth and Nosemonkey were feted like Founding Fathers by members of the core Euroblogosphere on Twitter, the medium of choice for quick interaction between bloggers on European affairs.

Nosemonkey and Jon Worth have drawn much inspiration from the fertile soil of England, where anti-EU tabloids constantly strive for new lows in their reporting and commenting on the European Union, and a large part of the public is uninformed enough to swallow anything, as long as it is negative.



When the European Parliament rapporteur on media mistrusted the reliability of social media as sources, Jon was right to point out the stupidity of the attitude:

Why the hell should we inherently trust m'stream media?

There are, of course, social media players as reckless with the truth as many virulently anti-EU British mainstream publications with huge readership (often mutually reinforcing), but I have also seen quality blogging on par with and sometimes surpassing the standards of even the best publications in English.

Even if the impact of conscientious Eurobloggers is small, quality blogging on EU affairs is a laudable pursuit. Checking facts and accounting for sources are foundations for good writing on relevant themes. Generous, but critical blog discussion could be stepped up, because it adds an important element of quality control.

The Founding Fathers have blazed a trail in the European social media world.




Ralf Grahn