EUROPE


Geography and politics

In spite of the poor definition of its boundaries, Europe is a continent. But, do the Urals constitute a true European frontier? Is the shore of the Atlantic Ocean an other clear border line? And what about Caucasus?
Let's make an example. Is Moldavia an European country? I happened to visit Chisinau, capital of Moldavia, in the seventies. On that occasion I learnt that the local population speaks romanian and russian. The country is located in Bessarabia (russian: without Arabs, i.e. without Islam). Accordingly, I feel the population of Moldavia consists essentially of Europeans. Will Moldavia soon or later follow the Romanians thus joining the European Union? Will they remain independent? Will they revert to a Russian Union when this will replace the former USSR?
Will Ukraine and White Russia make a similar decision? What will happen with the former Eastern Prussia, i.e. the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, unforgotten place of German traditions? What about Georgia (bordering Tchechnia)?
Norway is included in the Schengen treaty, together with Iceland. They are not members of the European Union. Let's not forget that, on the contrary, Greenland, being this island a major component of Denmark, constitutes a true physical border of EU with the American continent.
Switzerland, the common safe box of Americas, Europe, China etc., will probably keep its wait-and-see position for still a quite long time.
Turkey is an other clear example of the geographic undefinition of EU versus Europe. As a matter of fact the geographical Europe ends at the Bosphorous. Let's add Israel, being this state considered as one of the possible future members of EU.
Geographically speaking we are in a mess.

The situation reminds me of the old gag about Reagan and Gorbachev:
"We have made our utmost. Now, let's get hibernated and wake up in twenty years and see what's happened in the meantime!"
Twenty years elapsed and the two guys wake-up. "Come with the newspapers!"
"Look here Ron! USA is not doing so well! I read that Mexico is claiming Texas back under its jurisdiction!" (laughing)
"But Gorby, I read here about riots of the independists at the frontier between Germany and China!" (laughing)

Structure and Organization of EU

Regardless of the geographical problems, Europe should aim to become a Union consisting of all those European (and not) countries willing to lay off their sovereign status (not their culture), to benefit the harmony among the populations.

The Structure of the Union shall take advantage of all positive and negative experiences of the member states. This means that:
· The structure of the Union shall be democratic (positive experience)
· The structure of the Union shall not be fascist nor communist oriented (negative experiences).
· The structure of the Union shall not be influenced by any of the religions that, by tradition, deviate from the most beautiful instruction ever dispensed: give to Caesar what pertains to Caesar, to God what pertains to God.
· The structure of the Union shall be set up in order to represent every European citizen, regardless of the country of origin. To make it clear: the representatives sitting in a European Parliament must be nursed and trained to evaluate the interests of the country they represent within the frame of the higher interests of the Union. (The number of the representatives per country and their right of vote and veto were at the origin of the failure of the negotiations on European Constitution).
· The Government of the Union should be a true government i.e. Prime Minister (or President of the Union), Ministers, Ambassadors etc. fully empowered by the reduced staffs that shall administrate the several countries of the Union.

The Organization of the Union must, I repeat must, take into account:
· "…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
(The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen States of America - July 4, 1776)
· The way of living of each population, being this understood as the way of acting in respect to work, enjoy the life, suffer and mourn. But in no way this shall be in conflict, nor affect negatively, the life and activity of other populations not sharing the same traditions.
· The geographic position, being this important for studying and determining the type of central and peripheral infrastructures, communication systems and technical organization to be set up for the common benefit of the Union.
· The idioms. Based on their practical use across the world, three of them should be chosen and taught, namely English, French or Spanish, Polish or Bulgarian.
· The religions and the atheism. These are often strictly connected to the way of living. Anyhow, although being granted their freedom, they should in no way interfere with the organization and the management of the Union, both at local level as well as at central level. Europe should gratefully adopt the spirit of the French revolution, namely the laic spirit of the state.
· The education. A common scheme shall be adopted to provide the same minimum education level to all the citizens of the Union.
· The Justice. This will be probably the most difficult item to be dealt with. Some practical directives are already in force, but the main point will be to choose between the abstract sense of justice (Roman right) and the more practical sense of justice, typical of the Anglo-Saxons.
· The Defense. Personally, I find nonsense the creation of a second military organization in parallel with NATO. Please, do not hide behind "different scopes etc."
Let a PC study the possible combinations of the following factors: conflict of interests, competition, lack of communication, jealousy among commanders, collapsing of the different organizations.
· Bureaucracy. This is the real tragedy. Just a prayer: forget the old Romans. Forget Napoleon. Forget Franz Joseph. Forget all the fathers of bureaucracy.
An example (unfortunately 100% true): a guy is citizen of two countries of the EU. He is working in one of the two countries, where he has been resident for some thirty years.
Since he finds stupid to have two different documents with the same heading "European Union", he holds only the passport of one of the two countries, the one country where he is not resident, but usually more efficient. He is suddenly called for a business meeting in a country oversea. This country requires an entry visa. He sends the visa application together with his passport to the Consulate of the said country in the town where he is resident. The application is turned down since he should have submitted also copy of the stay permit (!!!) issued by the authority of the country where he is actually residing and working.
This is absolutely correct, when seen with the eyes of the representatives of the third country. Anyhow, don't you find tremendously stupid that the European Union, in spite of the fact that it proudly announced years ago the free circulation of manpower, still imposes a stay permit (application, validity, renewal etc.) for citizens of the same EU?
I know that many people would loose their job if the bureaucracy is simplified or cancelled, but I find complete nonsense to go on with this idiot game.

This is my contribution to a debate about Europe. I've tried to express the ideas of an old man who has spent 50% of his lifetime abroad, feeling always at home. I will be delighted to add clarifications and answer possible queries.

Francesco Pitrelli
Born 1934