I now live in Spain and the pro-European attitude seems curious set against the typically parochial attitudes (even more so than in the UK). Can anyone explain why this might be so?

As a passionate “European” I am understandably delighted to remind myself of the profound societal improvements wrought by successive decades of closer integration but these positive reactions are undermined by deep disappointment with the pace and direction of the integration process.

For me the advance of European integration and recognition of the potentially seminal role of sub-national geo-political entities are inexorably interwoven. It is no accident that the most vociferous opposition to closer integration in member states comes from within those Nations exhibiting relatively fixed unitary characteristics; such as the UK.

An element of devolution has been achieved in Scotland, Wales and (hopefully following this weekend) Northern Ireland but these developments do not signal a wholesale capitulation to the dispersal of power by Westminster. Competencies granted to each of the ‘Home Nations’ have been both asymmetric and strictly limited; only Scotland retaining any capacity to raise (small scale) revenues independently. Power to determine the scope and nature of public revenues, and with it the facility to establish relative financial independence from Whitehall, remains steadfastly London bound.

England, which continues to dominate social and economic activity within the British Isles, also remains exclusively unitary in its constitutional nature. Power is centralised (increasingly so) within a paranoiac control freak orientated Whitehall government machinery. The dispersal of effective political power is extremely hard won by lower tiers of accountable governance and painfully slow in emerging from a state machinery habitually reluctant to devolve competency and displaying a pervasive culture of centralism.

Why do I believe that European Regionalism and closer European integration are so dependent upon each other?

The answer is simple – the vast majority of European citizens do not fear Europe; indeed every successive Eurobarometer survey has indicated an appetite on the part of ordinary Europeans for the Union to play a more robust role, but only within clearly defined policy areas, where it can clearly demonstrate a relevant capacity. Obvious examples include:

• Global trade
• Global environmental strategies
• Pan-European and global transport policy
• Macroeconomic Policy (through Eurozone mechanisms)
• Organised (international) Crime & Terrorism
and more contentiously
• Defence
• Immigration
• Foreign Affairs

By contrast, European citizens in general react negatively to “unnecessary interference” from Brussels in policy areas they perceive as localised and immediate in scope, such as:

• Education
• Healthcare
• Local Law & Order
• Cultural matters
• Local economic strategies
• Local transport strategies
• Housing

Put simply, within a pan-European geo-political structure, the post-Westphalian Nation State has become too small for some issues but too large for others.

It is this emerging dichotomy of policy relevance that should dominate the great European debate in the 21st. century but the legacy of 19th century Nationalism continues to haunt our collective European future, stifling progressive approaches to increasingly complex challenges.

Those Europhobic groupings who implacably oppose the notion of integration in any form highlight the negative impact of centralised (and unaccountable) power – the constant refrain “European Super-State” is heard repeatedly but let us examine such claims in more detail. Ironically, whilst I concur with these fears, the solutions both you and I might advocate are rejected precisely because they cut across the status quo represented by the current Europe of Nations template.

In a Europe in which citizens have demonstrated their wish for Europe to be more involved in certain activities but not in others, following this principle to a logical conclusion, we discover that it is larger old-style Nation states looking increasingly past their sell-by date.

Countering the European Super State “bogeyman” is feasible by counterbalancing the ceding of powers in clearly defined policy areas with the devolution of effective power in other areas of more immediate concern to citizens – see the examples shown above. Within this context “effective” means the power to raise revenues commensurate with those policy areas devolved to more immediate sub-national tiers of governance.

Pursuing this strategy both incrementally and irrevocably would see a “withering on the vine” process emerge; gradually the relevance of National tiers of governance (in larger member states) would recede until at some point in the distant future (50 years hence?), our children and grandchildren might be faced with a dilemma; why bother retaining these old style National administrations representing out of date, ineffectual (and expensive?) geo-political entities?

Were the principles of logic and democracy to underpin the development of Europe’s institutional arrangements, the larger member states would begin to disperse power to accountable tiers of sub-national governance. Concurrently this array of more immediate geo-political entities could assume a stronger role within the European institutional hierarchy, perhaps by adopting the proposal of an upper elected chamber (thus establishing a conventional bicameral institutional structure) to represent the Union’s ‘real’ cultural diversity with each Region electing a set number of representatives (Senators?) based on respective population sizes.

This fundamental reform would signal the beginning of a true democratisation of the European political arena and initiate a long process of power realignment mirroring the new circumstance presented by the twin challenge of globalization combined with electorates desiring more direct influence over their immediate day to day lives.

However, this logical evolutionary process of geo-political driven reform is frustrated by the hybrid nature of our current European institutional architecture. Effective power within the European Union still resides within the Council of Ministers/European Council nexus – the larger member states: Germany, France, UK, ably abetted by a second tier comprising: Spain, Italy, Poland & Sweden combine to reinforce the status quo. The crucial question here is: does this quasi intergovernmental institutional arrangement best serve the aspirations of European citizenry en-masse or does it merely function to preserve the power and influence of member state institutions?

A stronger role for sub-national entities is denied by member states – e.g. their refusal to allow Constitutional Regions any direct contribution to the European Constitutional Convention process. Did they fear the enhanced political standing such recognition might convey?

Domestically, individual member states deliberately impede the development of robust, culturally legitimate sub-national entities precisely because they fear the emergence of any nascent Nationalist sentiments from within. Scots, Scanians, Silesians, Catalans and Bretons can all testify to varying levels of repression and/or discriminatory tactics during the last 50 years.

Here then lies the source of my dilemma – do I salute the achievements made during the last 50 years of European integration or condemn the blind-alley inherent within a “Europe of Member States” template?

Are we going to waste another 50 years discovering the fact that the member state foundations laid down within the very same treaty we are celebrating this week actually now poses the single greatest threat to further European integration?

The Independent is probably the best (in terms of its objective reporting style) daily Newspaper in the UK. It has a relatively small (but growing) loyal readership base.

They love printing stories like that highlighted just to **** off tub thumping Daily Mail reading xenophobes – hence the final comment in the list.

However, before you get carried away by the apparently positive attitude illustrated in the Independent, try the following link – http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=5825&edition=1&ttl=20070325211509&#paginator

This page is from the BBC’s Have Your Say forum – they posted an article on the 50 year celebrations and asked readers to comment – the page indicated is a list of the most recommended (i.e. popular) comments!

As I commented myself; it would appear that dogma driven ill-informed narratives remain standard currency in the forum. However such comments are widespread and popular – I am not sure what that tells us about the state of UK public opinion – no doubt those with a grudge use the BBC’s HYS forum to have a good old moan, mostly Daily Mail readers (we hope!)