An ambitious attempt began with presentations of two Europe's polars' perspectives. Firstly, Michael Henri Kowalewicz gave a speech on the perception of Europe through the Northern lense. His initial point was that Europe is "a work in progress". Therefore it needs constant reinventing and reinterpretations to stay alive. In his opinion the critical problem of contemporary Europe is that lacks fundamental agreements on crucial issues. It originates from the heterogeneous heritage of Europe. The Old Continent has always been a place of clash of conflicting ideas. A dispute between the legacy of Greeks and Barbarians may serve as one of the doznes of examples. M. H. Kowalewicz urges to remember that. We owe European roots to seemingly foreign (e.g. Asian or African) factors.
The Southern perspective was presented by Paul T. Levin who delved into the European story-telling. As he said, the current narratives on integration are no longer inspiring for Europeans. At the same time, he sees story-telling as an essential part of efficient community building. Now it looks obvious that the bureaucratic - neofunctionalist story only deepens the legitimacy crisis. Nevertheless, also the seemingly innocent culturalists' narratives are exclusive. P. T. Levin compared them to "ethno-nationalistm on European scale". Similarly, so called "euro-universalism" possess falsifying simplifications. The proclaimed "Europe of progress, solidarity and human rights" is also "an author of nationalism, totalitarianism and authoritarianism". To P. T. Levin such unconscious euro-universalism is "potentially chauvinistic and expansionist". Thus the narrative suggested by P. T. Levin is some "neither universalist, nor essentialist story". In his opinion, this would guarantee "inclusivity despite differences".
On the political level "the institutions should be designed to embody the core values". P. T. Levin perceives more accountable, decentralised and transparent federal system with directly elected commission president as a solution here.
Two presentations opened the debate.
To Marcin Król the distinction between the European North and South is false. As he reminded F. Braudel's remarks, in the past the only differences between the European polars are the drinking habits. Nowadays we're much more united in the area. "The things Braudel mentioned are more important than high politics" - Marcin Król concluded.
Interestingly, Ricardo Campa stated that "neither beer, nor wine are European". Beer, for instance, typically associated with the European North, originates from Egypt actually. This somehow correspond with the data quoted by Milica Pešić. As she stated, "it's not so noble of the EU to receive immigrants" because "immigrants are contributing to the European economy more than they benfit from our welfare states". Hence, the European borders are even more blurred than it might seem.
To Myroslav Marynovych Europe should be a more positive project. In his opinion, similarly to the falling Rome, "Europe reduces itseld to the defence". While the EU should act in the name of its values becuase it's "predestined to work for the outside", e.g. in Ukraine. M. H. Kowalewicz added that "values should not be just kew words" but a real, common basis for integration.
Later on, Atle Midttun tried to translate ideas into solutions. He suggested that, first and foremost, the European integration should be based on "softness and graduality". However this "does not work in two areas, namely, financial affairs and military field". Therefore he recommends to stop producing new legislation that would go "beyond the acquis".
To Nina Witoszek-Fitzpatrick what Europes need is a new European dream - a kind of positive, not a negative narrative. She reckons that the EU shouldn't be just ani- (war, etc.) project. She suggested that we should take a closer look at the Central European dissident movements, who were "the only embodimentof the postwar European dream". Krzysztof Bobiński added that similar inspiration can be found among the members of the opposition in the Eastern Partnership countries.
Wojciech Przybylski prefers a more modest approach. In his opinion, Europe "does't need big but small narratives in schools". A useful tool could be an obligatory EU civic education course in member states.
Evantually, Kai-Olaf Lang once again came back to the details. Europe should not look for the intellectually attractive but effective solutions. For example, Kai-Olaf Lang refered to the phenomenon of the post-democratic executive federalism. For Habermas it's a symbol of the legitimacy crisis and democratic deficit in the EU that can be healed through the bigger role of the European Parliament, etc. Conversely, Kai-Olaf Lang thinks that these are actually the negotiating governements in the Council, not the EP that represent the European societies. Interestingly, intergovernmentalism is more beneficial especially for smaller states.
To conclude, as Adtle Mdttun mentioned, each proffesion has its own European narrative. Is there really a necessity to create a one, big narrative or should we rather continuously reinterpret and reinvent Europe from multiple perspectives?
