Vortrag in der Karlsuniversität in Prag: Perspectives for European Integration (englisch)
Professor Zima,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The 25th anniversary of our city twinning, the official and intensive partnership between Prague and Hamburg, is the reason for visiting your beautiful city at this time.
The Elbe binds us together, said Mayor Henning Voscherau in 1990, when signing the partnership treaty with Jaroslav Koran, Primator of Prague, and even then the desire for cooperation went far beyond this simple statement. Business ties are an important, mutual concern, but for the past 25 years, Prague and Hamburg have also exchanged ideas on all the other issues that face big, modern cities.
Our city partnership is based on cultural relations and on personal and political friendships: in 1990 a role model already existed in the shape of a partnership between the Charles University and Hamburg University.
The link between our universities, now 35 years old, was established at a time when official institutions from eastern and western Europe regarded each other with scepticism, mistrust or even open hostility.
But the treaty signed on behalf of the two universities by Zdenek Ceska and Fischer-Appelt 35 years ago radiates a completely different attitude.
The document speaks of exchange, mutual invitations and learning about each other. The wording is cautious and yet, running through every paragraph of the agreement, is the desire to put differences to one side and to cooperate in the spheres of research and the sciences.
That two respected institutions should both decide to lift the Iron Curtain a little was an extremely unusual, even visionary move to make in the year 1980. And yet it was also a return to old traditions; the traditional links between Prague University and Germany, and the universitys traditional role as a place of higher education for Europeans.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The University of Prague has a unique history. I wish I had the time to attend your university for a sabbatical term. But today I should like to single out two aspects. Founded by Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor, German King and King of Bohemia, Prague University was the first university ever in central Europe. Until the early 15th century, the Charles University was the centre of learning in the Holy Roman Empire. Students came not only from Bohemia, but from Bavaria, Silesia and all the other parts of the German empire too. Both the famous German encyclopaedia Brockhaus and the Internet reference work Wikipedia point out that the Charles University may therefore be thought of as the oldest German university. However, that really means German language university and at that time one would have heard the then prevalent dialects spoken in southern, central and northern Germany languages that modern Germans would struggle to understand. The Holy Roman Empire was in fact a European realm, and so Prague University is of Bohemian origin but was always a magnet for people throughout central Europe
In Europe, during the Middle and late Middle Ages, it was customary, practically the rule, for students to study in different capital cities. A few examples will illustrate this: about 10% of the students from the northern Netherlands, 18% from the southern Netherlands, a fifth of Polish students and a quarter of all students from Antwerp went to study at foreign universities. These figures were compiled by the Belgian historian Hilde De Ridder-Symoens. This willingness to travel permitted the nobility to meet the cultural and intellectual demands of a society in flux, it was the pinnacle of a humanist education for teachers and an absolute must for medical students. In Italian cities such as Siena and Ferrara, three quarters of doctor titles were awarded to German students. De Ridder-Symoens writes that for several centuries, from the founding of the universities until about 1700, students travelled to different places of study and their peregrinations are an important part of university history. Amazing, in view of the hardships of travel. Quote: The roads were poor and unsafe, the means of transport primitive. Guest houses were few and far between, and mostly wretched. Armed skirmishes were frequent. Chauvinism and xenophobia were rife, as were disputes about religion and politics. But that did not stop thousands upon thousands of students from wandering through Europe.
Several centuries later, in June 1987, the Council of the European Union founded the European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students or ERASMUS for short. It took a good ten years for the level of student travelling to reach the degree seen in medieval times when universities were in their infancy. The European perspective is now a firmly established part of student life. Everyone has heard of ERASMUS, because apart from all 28 member states of the European Union, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Turkey participate in the programme. It is the worlds biggest programme of support for students wishing to study at foreign universities.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The strongly European outlook of universities ever since their founding and initial years of establishment is visible in other areas too. Walter Rüegg emphasizes this point in his standard work on the history of universities in Europe. Of the three medieval centres of power politics, the church and academia only the universities have retained their fundamental structures. For example, just as Prague was the model for the old Paris University, all universities have principles they have adopted from each other. The universities in the Holy Roman Empire jointly developed the methods and insights that underlie modern science. To Rüegg it is clear that the university is in fact the European institution par excellence.
And another historian also directs attention to the Middle Ages as the starting point for thinking about Europe. Brendan Simms, Irish historian and Professor for the History of International Relations at the Centre of International Studies at the University of Cambridge, has examined the struggles for hegemony in Europe from 1453 to the present day. He says that before people start to think about the future course of the European Union they should take a critical look at the Holy Roman Empire.
That sounds rather strange at first. Because the Holy Roman Empire was a loose association of a huge diversity of small states gathered under one king, and later one emperor. But there was no uniform or centralized power structure. It was so amorphous, that one cannot really liken it to anything else. A comparison over time of the Empires territorial changes reminds one of an amoeba; sometimes it is long and narrow, then it expands east and west, only to contract again. Decades of conflict, violent clashes about religious issues and the Thirty Year War marked the period from 962 until its demise in 1806.
Since the six founding members signed the original treaty, the EU, in contrast, has expanded steadily to the north, south, east and west and now numbers 28 member states. Legal integration has also become increasingly deep.
But the issue is not to find parallels in the narrow sense, but to see the perspectives. Brendan Simms is worried; he believes Europe is in an existential crisis. He sees a variety of differing interests and economic forces pulling the EU in opposite directions and says that the EU has no inner strength with which it can confront the challenges of global financial markets. In his view, history shows that the federal, consensus-oriented model of the Holy Roman Empire was inadequate. Its states lacked the necessary degree of integration and it was not in a position to develop a common foreign policy strategy. Therefore, he advocates that Europe should adopt the Anglo-Saxon model, as practised in the UK and the USA. Brendan Simms argues in favour of a strong, European parliament that would take responsibility for a joint security policy and a joint budget.
I agree with Brendan Simms that we need more integration, but I do not see an existential crisis.
And even if many people talk of crises, European politicians are despite their differences on matters of detail generally not as sceptical as Simms. Generally speaking it is a permanent feature of European integration that the next steps are open and a subject for debate. And even if there are numerous parallels in history, they cannot be used to forecast the future.
The European Union is a third model in the history of state integration, somewhere between the nation-state and a confederation of states. Debate about the nature of its institutions and what their remit should be mark the history of the Union, and will continue to do so in future.
Equally typical of the European Union is the debate about the supposed crises of its institutions. The history of the European Union could be written as a history of talk about its crises. True, we do have crises to overcome. The EU must deal with global crises and crises unfolding on the European continent. But the European Union itself is not in crisis.
Europe debates, negotiates and quarrels. Often we agree. Sometimes we agree to disagree. We have problems because we have bound ourselves together. But the fact that we have problems is not a problem. Thats normal in politics. The point of political debate is to solve problems.
And I am on the side of the debate representing the opinion that Europe needs more integration.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
One of the greatest achievements of the European Union is the right of all 508 million citizens of its member states to move freely and live anywhere they want inside the Union. And this is paired with his or her right to be treated as a local citizen in every EU state when looking for a job or buying and selling goods and services. This second basic principle, non-discrimination in the internal market, is violated occasionally, but is not in danger.
The first principle, freedom of movement, is one of the most valuable rights European citizens enjoy, as it allows them to work, live, study or spend time in another country for whatever reason they choose. This is a sublime right and it is impossible to overstate its value. But we must defend it, because the European Union is not yet well enough prepared to cope with the consequences of freedom of movement.
We must examine the legal and political issues to see when, and how, the promised solidarity that exists within the national context may be extended to include all EU citizens. Denmark, Ireland, Sweden, France and now the UK are against a uniform body of social security measures. And in Germany there are fears that people will migrate to take advantage of social security systems that are generous in comparison with other European schemes.
My theory is: if we want to defend the freedom of movement and take this principle into the future, we need to ensure that welfare state structures are interoperable.
Interoperability is a classic European term to describe the harmonization of different infrastructure and public administration systems. It means European integration while retaining national standards for the mutual benefit of all. And that is what we need for the social security systems too.
Meanwhile, the European Court of Justice has made several pronouncements that point this way. It confirmed that member countries do not have to grant social security benefits to citizens of the Union wishing to work in an EU state other than their own, until the recipient has been permanently employed in that country for a year. Therefore, the ability to exchange the support offered by the community of one EU state for that of another, depends not on the act of crossing the border, but also on success on that countrys job market. That is a good way for freedom of movement in Europe to work.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
An EU policy on defence and foreign affairs is becoming more important and here I agree with Brendan Simms that this will also require a more vigorous process of integration. The EU is surrounded by several flash points where developments are taking a dramatic turn: we are worried about the situation in eastern Europe, we observe what is happening in Iran and are concerned about Syria, Libya and the aftermath of IS terror attacks.
These crises call upon us to bind the EUs common defence and foreign policy more tightly into the process of integration. We must accept the fact that here too, the nation-state model does not fit the bill. Europe must examine whether steps towards an integrated foreign policy might be taken before pursuing further internal integration.
As the refugee issue has clearly shown, Europe can only be strong if we act together. We will continue to solve problems together. The basic concept remains that people fleeing persecution have a right to asylum, no matter where they first set foot in Europe. Europe is well equipped to meet its responsibility, but we must agree on joint procedures and how the burden should be distributed.
My theory is that if we ensure the interoperability of our social security systems in the sense mentioned earlier, we will be able to organize our common responsibility for refugees in a better way. Then, for example, there would be no problem in granting freedom of movement within the EU in terms of job markets and social security systems to someone who has, say, received asylum in the Czech Republic or Poland. We could send out the signal, that someone who, for example, applies for asylum in one of these countries, can seek a job in Germany once his status has been recognized. There would be less pressure to travel to the desired country immediately. Such a procedure might perhaps convince EU states who have not yet taken in many refugees, that there is no harm in taking more. It could be the basis for a Dublin IV Regulation.
By the way, the current debate has also revealed that the European public is growing more self-confident. Europe is discussing how to treat refugees from crisis zones in terms of the community response: all over Europe, articles about refugees are appearing in the national press and regional papers, and countries are looking at how others tackle the issue.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Our biggest success is the European economic area. The whole of Europe has benefited, and that includes countries outside the EU.
And the euro deserves unreserved praise. The euro is the second most important currency in the world, a currency that expresses Europes economic liberty and the freedom of movement enjoyed by its citizens. Europe is thus a good counter-balance to the economic potential of Asia and the USA too. We must defend the euro I am grateful that it has been possible to keep Greece in the euro zone.
The core structures of the European economic area are good. More steps towards integration must be taken to secure the banking system. Nation states will have to relinquish some of their powers in this area. But the euro is not in crisis either.
Explicitly and with conviction, we must affirm our commitment to the process of integration.
Germany does so in the light of historical experience. Unlike an earlier 500-year period in history, Germany today is able to live in a peaceful Europe as its most populous country with an enormous economic output. Our task is to broker consensus and to make such solutions financially possible, in other words, to pay.
No good European policies originate from ideas rooted in nation state politics - and that is also very applicable to Germany. All European Union issues must, and can be, addressed from the European perspective.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The European Union has just turned 60, which is no age at all for a European institution, certainly not in comparison with the history of your university. Nevertheless, this period has provided a solid basis, above all for the youth of Europe.
The young people now embarking on a traineeship, university course or their first job take the European institutions and their rights as citizens for granted. No longer does the Iron Curtain separate Prague from Hamburg, Prague from Paris or Hamburg from Dresden. Across the European Union, people are learning to speak their neighbours languages. At school, on holiday, or purely out of friendship. And many of the boys and girls now at school have always had their pocket money paid in euros.
As we know, sometimes the older generation tends to fret that the next generation might not value their achievements very highly. This is a worry I do not share. Nobody needs personal experience of war, expulsion and the loss of a comfortable life to know how important the European Union is. EU citizens are sufficiently aware of the threats. But Europes defence lies in the enormous capabilities of its young people. Their impressive ability to speak foreign languages, the ease and confidence with which they visit other countries, their great skills, their relaxed approach to new technologies and their no-nonsense attitude to earning a living.
You, the young people of today, will have the momentous task of taking the European Union to its next stages.
So, please make use of your freedom of movement, travel to work or study in another country, move peacefully beyond the borders of your own nation, European-style.
Make use of your languages to read what the media in other European countries are reporting. But above all, read what other countries say about European politics. Discuss European politics. Talk over a glass of wine or water, in the political sphere, university or in a blog. With every positive word that you, as a citizen of Europe, use to talk about European politics, you are helping to expand the European public.
Please make use of the many opportunities that Europe offers: you can strengthen European institutions by using them and helping them to develop.
You have a good 60 years in front of you, time in which you can make European unity a far better thing than it is even now.
The European Union is our perspective.
Thank you very much.
Es gilt das gesprochene Wort.