Favourite EU books – mission impossible?

Cosmetic Uprise – UK and the EU had hardly returned to the Euroblog scene, when Mia Välimäki asked for the moon with regard to the European Union - a good read that doesn’t preach or teach: EU literature (23 October 2010).

This seemingly simple question was provocative and difficult enough to elicit comments from Eurogoblin, Gawain Towler and Nosemonkey, some of the best known Eurobloggers.

The question is relevant, but the replies are far from conclusive, so join the discussion on Cosmetic Uprise if you have ideas.

Four favourites

The question felt intriguing enough, so I fell into the trap as well; stopped for a minute to search my memory and to pick a few favourites from my bookshelf. Obviously, the legal stuff came nowhere near what Mia was looking for. The books had to be of general interest, so I thought about what I had enjoyed reading. Here is my reply:

Mia V,

As others have said, you didn’t ask for much, did you? But you left a back door open, by not explicitly requiring books in English.

It would be hard to describe them as “thrilling” or not trying to “teach”, but here are a few I have enjoyed.

Gerhard Brunn: Die Europäische Einigung von 1945 bis heute (republished by http://www.bpb.de)

Marie-Thérèse Bitsch: Histoire de la construction européenne – De 1945 à nos jours (Editions Complexe)

Bino Olivi & Alessandro Giacone: L’Europe difficile (Folio histoire in French; original in Italian)

Luciano Angelino: Le forme dell’Europa – Spinelli o della federazione (Il melangolo)

The morning after

This following morning an additional book has surfaced in my mind (despite much legal text):

Daniele Pasquinucci: Progetti di Costitutizione Europea – Dall’Assamblea “ad hoc” alla Dichiarazione di Laeken (Edizioni Unicopli)

I then remember that this autobiography is worth reading:

Jean Monnet: Mémoires 1-2 (Le Livre de Poche)

All in all, if not EU the institution, then at least European integration has produced a few memorable books for me. Notably, those mentioned were all written in another language than English.

If I want something inspiring in English, my mind travels to the other shore of the Atlantic: the Declaration of Independence, the Philadelphia Convention, the Constitution of the United States of America, and especially:

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay: The Federalist Papers (various publishers)

It is hard to beat the Federalist’s mix of vision, courage and wisdom.




Ralf Grahn


P.S. Fondation Robert Schuman – Le centre de recherches sur l’Europe – describes itself in English as: the French think tank on Europe. The Schuman foundation publishes interesting reports and thoughts in French and English. If you haven’t done so, you should subscribe to its newsletter in French, English, Spanish or Polish.

The Economist ─ the Anti-Federalist Paper

The year is 1787 and Charlemagne, the delegate from Rhode Island – overlooked by the history books – returns to his island state after the closure of the Philadelphia Convention, where the framers of the US Constitution have replaced the decade old Articles of Confederation (1777), subject to ratification by nine states.

Charlemagne’s paper (The Economist) does not agree with the federal vision of the Founding Fathers. On his return, he sketches a few preliminary thoughts for his coming Anti-Federalist Papers. He rejects polygamy, marrying all one’s colleagues, nationalism, European level democracy and soggy corporatist versions of Rhineland capitalism.

Luckily, the leading lights among the framers saw into the future, and Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay explained the reasons for federal government in The Federalist Papers.

If it was possible to legislate an American “demos” and a republican, federal system into being in 1787 to replace the sovereign states – without precedents – it begs the question why extending democratic governance to the European level should be insurmountable in the 21st century.

Charlemagne may be right about states being tetchy about being outvoted, but it is a false dichotomy. A federal system is based on citizens: sovereignty of the people (except in Britain).

As citizens we are outvoted daily, at local, regional and state level, although majorities rule and minorities are protected. Adding the EU level would not make much difference in our daily lives, but the advantages of a united foreign and security policy, and defence, should be obvious.

We already have EU citizenship. Only full political rights in a system of representative democracy are missing.


Silently I wonder what the WW1 and WW2 fate of Britain would have been, if the Founding Fathers had lacked continental vision, or if the former colonies had bought the anti-federalist arguments, failing to ratify the Constitution.

Charlemagne needs to take a leap of more than two centuries to catch up with Europe’s global challenges. Let us hope that the coming posts at least set out on this journey.




Source: Charlemagne’s notebook: The secret selfishness of federalists (28 December 2009)



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Read Coulisses de Bruxelles, by Jean Quatremer, and other great euroblogs listed on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, our common “village well” for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs.