As Saint Mother Theresa has claimed – a man is actually nothing more than the way in which he is perceived. This phrase gives multiple choices for defining just one human being. How then, can Europe, an ancient geographic entity in historical terms and an active political player in modern times, possibly be defined? Maybe with regard to the emotions that it provokes? But is this the right approach? Is there a common emotion? Are the feelings towards Europe the same even within one nation? Is it likely that a Polish businessman, having a few joint ventures all around the EU countries, on the free market (EU invention) and stocks on the relevant markets, and a Polish plumber (acting on the free labor market, which appears to be not so free when it comes to the fulfillment of all of the procedural tasks for the EU citizens residing in another country) will perceive Europe equally? Unfortunately, I doubt it.
That is why it was not so easy for me to choose the subject for my first EU blog, in this time when the survival of the Euro represents a huge problem, when waves of crisis are overlapping and washing over some States on the coasts – Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, when the Arab spring flourishes, and when most third country citizens are denied the possibility to enter the EU due to ‘security issues’…
The number of choices of what I could possibly write about made me feel like a child in a candy shop with just a few cents and an enormous lust for sweets. Only, the problem with the EU nowadays is that most of its fruits leave a bitter taste after the first bite. This could be caused by the fact that “the ingredients” are not mixed properly, since the crisis has taken place and mixed it all up. As a result, in human and political relations there is more greed than comprehension, there is less understanding than desire to dominate, and everything is spiced with the human curse to want to possess instead of the ability to share. From everything built in the name of the Union, it seems that all that remains is just a written platitude – on which, thanks to the enthusiasm of the individuals after the WWII crisis, the Union was made: after the first Treaty the political analysts called it the ‘agreement to agree’. Agreement to agree was also the basis on which the three pillars, which are now eaten up by the bureaucratic body of the EU, were made.
The above statements could be perceived as pessimistic, but they are not, simply because I do not see EU issues in that way and this is, after all, my blog. As long as there are individuals within the EU who believe unselfishly in the powers and possibilities which pave the EU way, there is a chance for the EU.
Therefore, I will not write any more about the decadence of the EU idea and its unfortunate effects on its own soil, nor about the willingness of the EU people to make it sustainable, since it is evident that there are still people, foundations, political parties that believe in the EU, and, as long as it is so, the EU could recuperate and be reestablished with new brightness and glory.
In my next blog it will be possible for you to read about the perspective of most of the people with whom I share citizenship and about the destiny and possibilities of the country whose passport I possess, Serbian people and Serbia, as well as considerations on ‘how far out of reach is their possibility to contribute to the EU building process?’