Since the advent of the European Union, politicians have increasingly emphasized the notion of a European social model as an alternative to the American form of market capitalism.
European countries share common references, among which there are a number of values. Europeans are committed to democracy, human rights and the right of peoples to self-determination. They were even part of the criteria for the accession to the European Union.
In the economic sphere, the process of industrialization first started in Europe. Europe is also the birthplace of economic liberalism as Marxism and socialism. There is therefore still a European identity. Finally, in 2007, 67% of the Europeans believed that European countries had much in common culturally and in terms of values (peace, tolerance, respect for fundamental freedoms).
European countries are united by many things such as the currency (the €uro) or the European Institutions (European Parliament) but they have different backgrounds, cultures, they speak different languages..
To put it in a nutshell, we can say that European Countries are “united in diversity”, and this motto is indeed the European Motto.
Why Europe, Why not ? 
Let us add something about cultures and languages. “United in diversity”, as you said, is the motto of Europe. It can be explained by the fact that European languages and cultures rely on very old traditions. For instance, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Romania share the same Latin roots in their languages. Moreover, the ancient cultures of the huge Roman Empire in the Antiquity are the origins of most of those of many countries nowadays. But as time went by, each of them has evolved : in our point of view, that explains the diversity of all the European cultures. Yet, there is no denying that most European countries share the same religion.
Thanks for your comment, it’s true that “there is no denying that most European countries share the same religion”, but in fact, nowadays, like ‘ceceandclemeuropeeans’ said, “Europe no longer had its social function and that it was based just on trade”..
Which role does culture play in the criteria to fullfill for the countries willing to join the EU ? It has been reproached to Turkey that its culture is not European as it is a Muslim country… #Xavier
Thanks for your comment. Turkey signed a Customs Union agreement with the EU in 1995 and was officially recognised as a candidate for full membership on 12 December 1999. Negotiations were started on 3 October 2005. The membership bid has become a major controversy of the ongoing enlargement of the European Union because of their culture somewhat different from the European one’s but the process should be in Turkey’s favour, it is likely to take at least a decade to complete.
I agree with you, when you say European countries are united by values such as peace, tolerance… But don’t you think there are also links between them, like historical or religious means ? I mean, for you, is Europe just an economic alliance, which means that every country can enter it ? Or, on the contrary, because of its more and more powerful political dimension, doesn’t it mean that some Nations, such as Turkey, for instance, cannot enter it, for they do not have the same culture as the European countries, which have been built by Christian religion and a special political regime which is the Monarchy of Divine Right ?
I know former President Chirac refused to take into account the religious roots of Europe, in the European Constitution, but does that decision mean that every country willing to enter the European Union can do so, whatever its origins or culture ? It may be better for the political, social and economic dimensions of the European Union if the links between countries which are composed it, are not just peace, tolerance, market economy… It is indeed important, but there are also other dimensions.
Religion is not the question for Europe because as you know in each country many religions are represented and not just Catholic ones. We have seen in our economic lesson, that Europe no longer had its social function and that it was based just on trade. The currency is the good example to explain our issue because on the bills there are just symbols as bridges, windows and doors, that is to say symbols of opening and sharing that deal just with trade and not political and religious symbols or dealings.
We think ‘ceceandclemeuropeeans’ summarized the situation very well by saying that “Europe no longer had its social function and that it was based just on trade”.
Thank you for all your answers !
Personally I disagree, because the values conveyed by the European Union are essential for the balance of the area. Indeed, it is because some countries wish to have a special relationship with the EU that they are changing their home policies. Namely, countries such as Moldavia or Georgia have made efforts to improve their social situation and reduce the corruption in their country in order to be able to sign agreements with the EU. Unlike Russia, which sort of blackmails these countries into signing agreements with them, the EU wants these countries to make all they can to improve the situation of their inhabitants before accepting long term relationships with them, and this is why I feel Europe has an essential part to play in the spreading of democracy on the continent, it’s not only a matter of trade, even though obviously it is linked. Belarus or Azerbaïdjan for example prefer getting money directly from Russia, but this is not a long term relationship and it is based on corruption. We can see it clearly with what has happened recently in Ukrain. The refusal of Yanukovitch to sign the agreement with the EU in Vilnius last November sparked things off because a tremendous part of the Ukrainian people felt betrayed: many people there are pro-European, and the fact that Yanukovitch finally accepted to obey Putin revolted them. This is because these people are longing for democracy and fear the relationship with Russia might lead to less freedom.
I have another example, which is about food in Europe: thanks to the EU, many additives that were present in most products we eat are now forbidden because they were dangerous for our health. Of course, there is still a lot to do, but this is not a matter of trade either. This is one of the reasons why more and more sweets are made with natural colourings and no preservatives (“conservateurs” in French!), in order to get rid of unhealthy products, though personally I still think there are too many products containing E330 or E110 (Watch your Coke!), which are probably carcinogenic. But getting rid of all of them will take time and the EU is playing a major part in the improvement of what we eat.
You said that Europe is “united in diversity” however do you really believe this is true? Countries like France or Bulgaria are economically and culturally different, so how could they have the same vision of the European Union?
Joséphine.
We have a question which is similar to that from Pauline and Joséphine.
If there are a lot of differences between the states of Europe, don’t you think that we can be seen as a “nation”? That is to say that citizens of Europe don’t consider themselves as “European”.
And, how could the different institutions proceed to unify Europe?
I agree with you. And I would add that the differences between the different countries is perhaps consolidated with their seniority in the EU. I explain : I ask me if there is no “rivality” between the founders countries and the others, which, often, have a very different culture and a lower wealth. But the truth of the unity of the europeans countries lies in the unity of their governors, and this condition is not totally respected nowadays when we see, for exemple, the relationship between F.Hollande and A.Merkel, whereas the relations between France and Germany are really important !
First of all , you said that many coutries of Europe share common references and values such as democracy, human rights. Indeed, these values upheld in all member states are inseparable and guarantee the image of the European Union around the world. Here, we can speak of unity .
Nevertheless , on the social and economic plane , even if they all have the same currency , they have different institutions and develop varied economic strategies .
We can’t talk about an economic unity whereas the wealth gap between the citizens of the 28 countries of the European Union keeps increasing.
For instance : the share of gross domestic product per capita is seven times as high in Luxembourg asit is in Bulgaria.
What’s more , poverty isstill very present, inequalities persist, injustices remain between them .
To put it in a nutshell , though they may share the same ideas, we can see many differences that undermine unity in the economic sphere .
Economic and size disparities exist between the countries of the European Union … It may be true that Europe is a unified continent but the applying countries to the European Union have too different cultures to be in agreement on many many points that are necessary to the gcohesion between them.
With all the respect I owe you, Madam Pipon, you said a lot of Ukrainians felt betrayed by Russia when Putin refused to sign a treaty with the EU, but many inhabitants of this country did not want to enter this organization (the EU) and they would also have probably felt betrayed by Putin if he had signed the treaty with the EU.
Furthermore, you spoke about liberty, peace, democracy… All these values are very important, but Europe is also ( and I will contradict “ceceandclem”) and mainly a continent with a History and we cannot reduce the EU just to an economic trade : in our time, the EU is becoming more and more political, some people are even in favour of the United States of Europe ! Imagine just one moment a “country” gathering different cultures, religions… It is just impossible !
Personally, I think that, if France has to give some royal powers to the EU, it cannot be the case if we are living in an organization which welcomes every country from every part of the world and mainly, which forgets the cultural origins of these countries.
Now, I would like to react to what Josephine said : the countries of the EU have, indeed, not the same culture, although it comes from the Greeks and the Romans, although Catholic religion has been, for a very long time the religion, not only of France, but of Europe, although the political system of lots of European countries was the Monarchy… All these things have built Europe. But, I believe that, because of the differences between countries, despite the common points I have just listed, all the Nations of the EU cannot have the same vision of what this union is and, if there are, among us, some “pro US of Europe”, I have the regret to tell them that I believe that it is just impossible.
I may have not been clear enough about Ukraine. Article 49 has never been and will never be on the agenda, it is not a matter of entering the union, but a matter of cultural influence. The UE conveys values (linked to its history) which influence people in countries that are not part of it. The division of the Ukrainian people is linked to the history of the country as well, but Ukraine is part of the “Eastern partnership” (“the neighbours”) and it is essential to maintain relationships with such countries to be able to work with them and spread the ideal of democracy, even if about 30 or 40% of the Ukrainians are prone to give in to the lure of Russia. As long as a major part of the inhabitants of the country are open to the values of freedom, democracy, etc, the country won’t fall in the bosom of Russia.
If you permit me, I would like to add something. I think the different cultures we discussed about are not the real problem of the EU ; I believe we built something too large, too quickly and, as a consequence, which is today unmanageable.
I understand what you mean, but now it’s done we have to understand that the 28 countries are indeed 28 different entities, with different histories and characteristics, which have to be taken into account. The EU entails no levelling, the countries were accepted because they showed they were able to improve on certain aspects. Now, just like in a love story, we accept them with their weaknesses, just as they are, because we know we can achieve something with them.
It is indeed very romantic… But, do not you think there are some aspects of the EU which have to be improve ? The growth of eurosceptic political parties shows us there is something which does not work in this organisation.
Yes, of course, I see what you mean, but anyway in a time of crisis countries and even communities tend to withdraw within themselves, so as long as the current crisis goes on, it will be hard to have a long term view. The last enlargements might have been too hasty, but now that the EU has become what it is, we have to compromise with the countries that are part of it. These enlargements have changed the very nature of the Union, some might deplore it, but some might feel proud of it too, because they are ready to take up the challenge. I am naturally optimistic and I think the EU is the best means to improve its members’situation, whatever their initial situation might be, but it will be hard for the “strong” countries to stop being wrapped up in their own concerns as long as, because of the crisis, the citizens of Europe concentrate on what they haven’t got and what they might lose. A feeling that favours jealousy, communautarianism and national pride, of course, but unfortunately this is quite natural.