Clear Communication: The EU's struggles begin at its lack of clear identity

Unlike the United States, the European Union is formed out of a heritage of many different visions based in many different cultures. These diverse ideological streams mean that the EU is an organisation for which harmony does not come easy. At the core of the EU's problems is the lack of agreement as to a clear purpose for the organisation.

For any organisation, clear and united aims and purposes are essential to effective action. The failure to set out aims clearly can lead to unintended consequences, and even result in internal conflict.

The United States, for instance, derives its own common identity and purpose from a shared history surrounding its Revolutionary War and its Civil War, as well as clear statements of purpose contained within a few definitive documents. By comparison, the European Union is the product of many overlapping treaties, signed at many different times, for many different purposes, by many different nations.

Likewise, the vision of a United Europe has developed along many different paths.

Early attempts to unite Europe were little more than monuments to ego. In the modern sense of Europe - of a continent comprised of many nations - Napoleon Bonaparte was the first to attempt large scale cohesion across Europe on matters such as economics and trade. However, Napoleon's Continental System was little more than the spoils of imperial conquest, all melted down into the resources of warfare.

More nuanced ideas came later in the 19th century, in particular during the struggle for Italian Unification. The ideas of journalists and political activists like Carlo Cattaneo and Giuseppe Mazzini set a standard for imagining Europe as a federation of republics. Cattaneo and Mazzini advocated an United States of Europe as a natural continuation of the attempts to unify Italy, free from despotism, governed democratically by rational laws (Mazzini; Recchia & Urbinati; 2009)

However, it was concerns of an economic, and somewhat strategic, sort that led to modern European unity. The European Coal and Steel Community, an early predecessor to the EU, was founded with the one of the principles of free trade at its heart: that states dependent upon one another due to integrated economies cannot afford to go to war. The modern Union has developed out of these principles. As more and more countries have joined an evermore integrated community of nations, ostensibly for the benefits of trading with their European neighbours, they have brought more history, more values and visions, to an already complicated collection of institutions.

This complicated heritage has led to the European Union becoming a massive supranational entity, but one with unclear purposes and many different aims. It simply cannot serve all of them. By comparison, the United States of America has, through concerted action and defined identity, become a global superpower.

While becoming a superpower may not be the ideal aim, it still serves as an example of what can be accomplished. In order to play an effective role, careful consideration needs to be given to aims and purposes, to ensure that all who participate are clear on where they are heading, and why.

Attempts have been made to seek out such clarity. For example, the Commission of President Romano Prodi made great strides at pulling to together the various strands to develop and establish such an identity for the EU (Prodi, 2002). Yet these attempts are infrequent, and often struggle against a tide of partisan positions and ever more treaties in response to changing events.

Without clear aims and coherent communication, the European Union will continue to present a tangled and complex image. That complexity creates confusion that makes it hard to identify with the organisation, and distances it from public. For any organisation, especially a democracy, it is absolutely essential that people are able to understand what that body is, and are able to trust it to act as agreed. It is a long road to building such an image, but that journey begins with clear communication.

==========
References:
==========
+ Giuseppe Mazzini; with Stefano Recchia & Nadia Urbinati (ed.) 'A Cosmopolitanism of Nations: Giuseppe Mazzini's Writings on Democracy, Nation Building, and International Relations'; Princeton University Press; 2009.


+ Romano Prodi's 'A Wider Europe'; in The Guardian; 5-6 December 2002.

Federal Law: Finding a legal solution to the Gibraltar dispute would be a huge step for international law

Two of Britain's most controversial Overseas Territories, the last vestiges of its Empire, have been back in the news in recent months. First, the Falklands dispute has been relit by Argentina's renewed claim to the islands. And in the past few weeks this has been followed by friction between Spain and Gibraltar.

These two disputes make for a fascinating comparison. Although the two disputes have similar undertones - similar connections to questions of sovereignty and territorial claims - there is a significant difference between them. One is being conducted between independent nations through the traditional diplomatic channels of international relations, while the other presents an opportunity for the dispute to be deferred to the legal framework of a federation of states.

The possibility that the European Courts will be brought in settle a dispute between sovereign states is a hope that should be grasped. Such a means of reaching a resolution, through a consistent and impartial legal approach, would be a huge step for international law and show a major commitment to peaceful ends to conflict.

The dispute between the UK and Argentina over the Falkland Islands, that broke out into conflict in 1982, was recently brought back to the fore when the Argentine government restated its claim to the islands earlier this year (Goni & Harding, 2013). So far these renewed claims have resulted only in limited discussions and stunts for the benefit of the press - open letters, referendums, and accusations (Hanman, 2013; Greenslade, 2013).

By comparison, the most recent rise in tensions between Spain and the UK regarding Gibraltar, sparked by a dispute over territorial waters and fishing rights (BBC, 2013), has led to an almost immediate suggestion of legal action being taken at the European courts by the UK government (Syal, 2013). Shortly after the dispute over fishing rights took its latest turn - the decision by Gibraltar's authorities to begin construction of an artificial reef in disputed waters - Spanish authorities have introduced stricter checkpoints at the border with Gibraltar. While the Spanish Government claim these new checkpoints will help prevent smuggling, there are concerns that they simply mark the next step in the row.

The first move towards resolution of the present Gibraltar dispute has been an appeal to the European Commission - the executive body of the European Union - to bring forward the scheduled visit by EU monitors who were due to investigate the situation at the Spain-Gibraltar border (BBC, 16 Aug 2013). This move was further accompanied by suggestions that the UK may also take the matter to the European Courts.

The difference between the two cases is of immense importance. The existence of a solid legal framework, respected by all sides of a dispute, that can be called upon to arbitrate is surely the soundest path to ending destructive conflicts.

'It is incredibly important that the rule of law be respected at an international level because if we have law/law then we do not have war/war.' (Aiden O'Neill QC, 2011)

Despite disheartening suggestions that Spain and Argentina may ally over these issues to seek a more old-fashioned resolution achieved by international diplomatic pressure (Govan, 2013), we must remain hopeful. For the people of Europe, the European Union offers the hope of consistently applied law, beyond or above the bounds of which states cannot set themselves. In that hope lies the possibility of freedom from the destructiveness of conflict and arbitrary rule.

==========
References:
==========
+ Uki Goni & Luke Harding's 'Argentina urges UK to hand back Falklands and "end colonialism"'; in The Guardian; 3 January 2013.

+ Natalie Hanman's 'Falklands debate: is Britain still a colonial power?'; in The Guardian; 3 January 2013.

+ Roy Greenslade's 'Falklands' referendum fools nobody - it amounts to a rigged ballot'; in The Guardian; 11 March 2013.

+ BBC's 'Q&A: Gibraltar row'; 12 August 2013.

+ Rajeev Syal's 'Gibraltar row: David Cameron considers EU legal action against Spain'; in The Guardian; 12 August 2013.

+ BBC's 'Gibraltar row: Cameron asks EU to monitor border checks'; 16 August 2013.

+ Fiona Govan's 'Gibraltar: Spain considers joint diplomatic offensive with Argentina over Falkland Islands'; in The Telegraph; 11 August 2013.

+ Aidan O'Neill, at 44:21 in the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Transcript - 'Voting by convicted prisoners: summary of evidence' February 2011; Video - Tuesday 1 February 2011 at 10.10am ended at 12.07pm.

Splendid Isolation? The history of British foreign policy is not what you think...

Those in the UK who most strongly resist European integration hark back to an unspecified time in the past when England and its empire, run from its island fortress, stood apart - unconcerned and invincible in the face of continental affairs.

But the history of British foreign policy is not really the story of 'splendid isolation'. Isolation was never really practised by Britain, nor was it ever really a practical policy. Being an island nation, with trade as its lifeblood, Britain has never been shy of the need to engage with its neighbours. British policy as a result has generally pursued policies aimed at avoiding disputes and maintaining peace with or between neighbours to avoid the closing of borders, the raising of tariffs, and the conflicts that choke trade. As such, the European Union represents not the antithesis, but rather the realisation of British efforts - peace in Europe, with Britain playing a major role.

Early signs of this approach can be found in the wars between Britain and France - fought almost continuously from 1688 to 1815 - that spread across the Nine Years War, the War of the Spanish Succession, the Seven Years War, the American Revolution, the French Revolutionary War and the Napoleonic Wars. Despite the famous victories of British commanders like Marlborough, Nelson, and Wellington, during much of this era British influence was not military but rather diplomatic and economic.

For example, during the Napoleonic Wars, British land forces were laughably outnumbered by the armies of their European neighbours. The British army's most famous theatre of the era, the Peninsula War in Spain and Portugal, saw Wellington's small army enormously outnumbered by the French. Likewise, Wellington's most famous battle at Waterloo saw the British forces represent only half the number of those under Napoleon's command, even when it was supplemented by a mix of allied troops of Dutch, Belgian and German origin. Parity with Napoleon was only achieved by fighting alongside a similar sized Prussian force (Harvey, 2006).

Similarly, British opposition to the expansion of the German empire and its navy played an important role in its involvement in the Great War. British dominance at sea, the bedrock of its empire, was severely threatened by German efforts to become a colonial power. The ability of Britain to maintain its control of the seas, needed to protect its trade, would have been rocked had the German Empire succeeded in gaining hegemony in Europe. The solution was once more far more diplomatic than military, with Britain building a friendship with its old enemy France, and joining its entente with Russia (Massie, 1991).

Assuring the peace that allowed imperial trade to flourish, meant making alliances and deals with everyone who could be found, from the Spanish Partisans, to the Austrian and Russian emperors, and even to making peace and alliance with France, the oldest enemy. While it is true to say that British foreign policy of this era was at times pursued from a distance, it was always calculated to acknowledge that British power, its island and its trade routes, would best remain undisturbed by maintaining a balance between the European powers, maintaining peace on the mainland.

Achieving this meant constant engagement with Europe, rallying coalitions against those that threatened the peace; doing economic deals to keep other nations on side; even making friends with old enemies; and all of this conducted in Europe. The climax of the wars with France was the Congress of Vienna, a forum where the diplomatic fallout of war was debated. At the congress Britain's prize for the alliances it had built was the return to a Europe of peaceful and co-operating states - for a while at least - within which it played active role. The one thing that British foreign policy sought to avoid was becoming isolated.

As Britain once engaged with Europe to find diplomatic solutions and alliances to protect its trade by keeping Europe peaceable, it today plays an active part within the European Union. The legacy of those policies, of the Congress of Vienna, and of British interventions in the two world wars, where it joined with those who sought to defend peace and free trade, is the EU, and the major role that Britain plays in it.

==========
References:
==========
+ Robert Harvey's 'The war of wars: The epic struggle between Britain and France: 1789-1815'; Constable, 2006.

+ Robert K Massie's 'Dreadnought: Britain, Germany & the Coming of the Great War'; Jonathan Cape, 1992.

Unreliable Narrators: The dangers of being misled extend beyond the page and the screen

This article contains some spoilers for the films The Usual Suspects and Memento.

The narrator is an important dramatic role. Much like 'everyman' protagonists, the narrator's purpose is to bring the reader or viewer into the story, often through the viewpoint of a compelling character or raconteur. Yet, part of the fun with these characters is that we cannot always trust them - being as they are players in the game themselves - and our own willingness to trust these storytellers leads to great dramatic moments when the deception is unveiled.

Our culture is replete with examples of these unreliable narrators, from the ignorant, like Memento's Leonard Shelby, whose telling of the tale is skewed by his own limited view of events; to the liars, like The Usual Suspects' Verbal Kint, who exploits our limited ability to make sense of our universe by framing the information we receive from him to fit his own purposes.

But these devices are not limited to the land of fiction. In the real world, without the guiding hand of an author to pull away the veil, it can be much more difficult to see the truth and intentions behind the tales you are told. There are, however, ways to combat these impediments. Francis Bacon changed the world and laid the foundations of modern scientific thought when he posited the idea that nothing should get in the way of the gathering and analysis of raw data, even hypotheses, for those who wished to discover the truth of how something worked.

In Memento, the protagonist Leonard Shelby - through whose eyes we see events - is attempting to solve the murder of his wife despite a brain injury that has rendered him incapable of creating new memories. While he pursues answers for himself, he is dependent both on those around him and upon the mechanisms he has created to take the place of his memories - his tattoos and his Polaroids. Those dependences fall foul of Bacon's Idols of the Mind, or False Images of the Mind, part of his method for overcoming the obstruction to rational thought. We construct classifications and orders, and try to force the world fit to in with our systems, as what Jung would have called Archetypes, in an attempt to make sense of the chaos around us. Yet Bacon argued that these systems actually limited our view by placing these human imposed systems in the way of pursuing purely rational truth.

In The Usual Suspects we are introduced to the much more manipulative Verbal Kint, who shows us how these Idols of the Mind not only restrict us, but might even be wielded against us. The interrogating detective, Dave Kujan, entered into the interview preoccupied with discovering certain facts, and both his preoccupation and his presumptions about likely events were used to deceive him. Kint uses Kujan's prejudices, his conceits, his presumptions about how the world is and the relationships between things to successful deceive him into believing the story he crafts - hiding the truth behind what the Detective Kujan expected to find.

Back in the real world, the most poignant area of our lives that this affects is the way in which receive our news. In a talk for TED in 2011, Eli Pariser described how the tools that we rely on to stay informed on the internet have also begun to shape the picture of the world that we see. He called this phenomenon, where 'personalisation' changes tools like search engines to produce results tailored for you, 'filter bubbles'. He expressed his fears that these electronic systems were damaging us by taking away the things that we need to see - like the uncomfortable or the different - that help us to flesh out or contextualise our thinking.

And this effect isn't limited to our internet social media. Anything from the news channel you watch, to the newspaper you read, to the people you surround yourself with, can have a decisive influence upon your ability to see to the heart of a matter. It is because of this, and the fact that those with ulterior motives can use this against us to deceive us, that methods like drawing information from multiple, and diverse, sources is so important. Bacon stressed the importance of gathering data for yourself, without relying on the narratives or hypotheses of others which might sway your judgement away from the story that the data itself tells.

As films like the The Usual Suspects and Memento have taught us to be wary of being overly trusting of sources in dramatic narratives, so too must we take these lessons seriously in our real lives. We must check our facts, check them with multiple sources, and put aside distractions like prior presumptions if we are to find our way to the heart of matters.