Dear Harun, you might be the first in our community to raise an academic question. Happy new year. I hope that this years 2019 brings you happiness and elegant research projects. Your question is important in our world. It might be wise to broaden the question to the role of the US, Russia and China. Why? The interest in the old silk roads with the old Smart cities on this road is back. China starts to build them with the help of Russia and Turkey. We also should not forget Africa that was demolished by western colonisation and now possibly by Chinese neocolonialism. The power of the world in in East-Asia. We must not close our eyes to it. It would be better if Europe collaborates with Russia, Turkey and China.

But returning to Europe, your question my answer is allow regions to have different speeds. Possible areas in which speed might differ are economy, human right, immigrants, refugees and climate. Europe now is torn apart because of economic inequality of which immigrants and refugees are to blame. Piketty (2014, Capital in the 21th century) argues that property tax is a solution to overcome the gap between the wealthy and poor. Dear Harun the new poor in the EU is the under-middle-class. This inequality causes an enormous amount of polarisation between different interest groups, like the yellow vests. Second more the EU should must prepare for the next crisis. Thirdly the EU should reconsider her refugee and immigration policy. These polices should become humane. Forth the EU should reconsider her climate policy. For instance if the water level rises, a major part of the Netherlands will disappear. At least 75% of the Dutch will then become refugees in the EU. Fifth the EU has to question the so-called nation state philosophy, like Trump the US first. Dear Harun this is an attempt to answer your very important question, not only for us but also for our children and grandchildren. They have the right to receive from us a "healthy" world. A happy new years day, Carl

في البدء نعم كان الاتحاد الأوروبي افضل إطار للتعاون الاقتصادي والحفاظ على الأمن والسلام .ولكن في الوقت الحاضر اعتقد ان هناك الكثير من الازمات التي يعاني منها الاتحاد الأوربي وتؤثر على وحدته لذا اعتقد انه شيئا فشيئا سينتهي الاتحاد الأوربي

In the beginning, the EU was the best framework for economic cooperation and the maintenance of peace and security. But at the moment I think there are a lot of crises that the EU is suffering and affecting its unity so I think that the European Union will gradually end.

The EU economic framework , at least in some member states like Germany, has been truly efficient. However, recent events in the relationship of EU countries with America have revealed that the said efficiency will be sustainable only if EU policies are aligned with those of America. Like it or not, conflicts in such economic alignment can have unpleasant consequences.

Dear Carl HD Steinmetz, Wahag Abass and Reza Biria

thank you for your pleasant comments and nice contributions.

Did the ancient Romans be right when they said: dictum sapienti sat (est)?

This Latin phrase in English means - A word is enough to the wise, or - A word to the wise is sufficient, or - Inough for the wise, or - A word to the wise is enough!

https://glosbe.com/la/en/sapienti clock

In our time a normal man must set a million different, above all existential questions. For example:

Where is this world going? Where does Europe go as a cradle of democracy and human rights? Is it possible to avoid a new war? How many world powers are giving money for new and new weapons? How many are there in the world? What are the UN and the EU doing to protect human rights and the survival of mankind? How to protect the environment? How to get rid of the sick? Who has more weapons: Americans, Russians,

Chinese ...? Why do they need so many weapons? How many times can destroy the planet? Who has the highest kill capacity - over-kill capacity? How much? How? Why?

Are these, and similar questions are enough for modern man? Do you inspire him? Are they worried about him?

What really does that Latin saying means?

Dear Harun it might be the task of scientists who are willing to order all these questions on the basis of scientific criteria, hoping that the result might be an Albizia saman tree with a trunk, big and small branches (I use this as a metaphor). All the best, Carl

I don't know if it is the beat, but it is much better to be inside than to be out of EU; we see many positive changes in Croatia.

No. It is most definitely not the best framework. See my blog, and as an introduction, this article of mine:https://storybookreview.wordpress.com/2018/09/30/europes-revolution-the-unintended-consequences-of-good-intentions/

Dear Jonathan, a very good but discouraging analysis in your blog.

However, from your conclusion, there is little hope.

"... Here is Vaclav Klaus, the former Czeck president on the subject: ”We reject the EU’s plan to use foreigners to displace Czecks, and we refuse to allow our country to be transformed into a multicultural society with maladjusted communities, which is what we see today in France and the UK”.

And finally, Brexit. Here are the words of Jeannie Mardon from Norfolk, in a letter of June 21 2016 to The Daily Telegraph: “It strikes me that many people are amazingly casual about the foundations of our freedom. I do not view an elected Parliament, a unifying Crown and an independent judiciary as mere abstractions. My grandfather fought in the First World War, my father in the Coldstream Guards. His only brother died in a Japanese camp, and my husband was killed while on active service in the RAF. …For my part, allowing an unelected jurisdiction to impose laws on us or to supersede our legislature is a violation of our sovereignty.”

In conclusion, Europeans should not leave the field of Europe’s architecture to its actual denizens. They have steered the European canoe into fast waters, and thrown away the paddles on the assumption that the gathering speed of the river is sending them in the right direction. Now they can hear the mighty sound of Niagara, and are panicking.

.........

The analogy has to be suspended here.What the denizens of “l’Europe” have done is create the present impasse. They have done so because they fail to understand what Europe is.

What is required is not “more Europe”, but less integration as a pre-requisite to a more united Europe. Less for more. Now that’s a good business proposal."

There is no hope at all if the "ever closer union" brigade win. The situation that Europe is in is entirely their creation: Europe needs a common regime, that is flexible and adaptable to its variety. That does not sure with one-size-(does not-fit-all" thinking. Regards

Dear Carl,

How fantastic is your comment.

I do not want to add anything.

You said everything.

I'm sorry I'm late with the New Year's congratulations.

Thank you for your congratulations - also, I want you all the most beautiful in the new 2019.

The EU in its present state is a success story, but the question is for how much time will last this state of things? I think that the two main challenges that might change the actual state are poor economic growth compared to USA or BRIC countries and centrifugal tendencies, already visible.

I do not think the EU has an alternative.

All defects can be corrected.

If BREXIT fails then it will be a new strengthening of the EU.

A new policy within the EU should be conceived.

It is also necessary to build new relations with USA, Russia and China.

Dear Harun, I hope that the EU in her new "cloth" will also repair economic and social inequality. As Europeans we can not afford that much polarisation between human beings. As Europeans we might need Cultural Marxism? I am interested what your opinion is about these matters Harun. Have a nice Sunday Carl

Dear Carl,

First of all, I think the EU needs to survive. All alternatives are worse than EU society.

I believe that Europe needs to preserve cultural diversity. But in Europe there has already been a unification of cultural patterns, i.e. to the creation of authentic European standards, so that one European syncretic culture was made.

Only one small domain has remained in the private sphere, but this domain is sufficient to meet the needs of various subcultural groups.

I do not think cultural Marxism is right when it says that culture is the main cause of inequality among people.

We must always take care of human rights.

I think that the problems with the EU stem mostly from the fact that people feel that they are being governed by unelected officials. They are given mandates from Brussels that they had no say in formulating.

That can be adjusted, with new and better laws. In a democracy, even a representative democracy, the presumption is that the government is operating with the consent of the governed. If this is not the case, then one is inviting revolt.

There are problems enough in the US, with the separate State and Federal governments, but these problems have been alleviated with appropriate representation of the people, even at the federal government level. And many checks and balances too. I think the EU might need to adjust its laws along similar lines. Because globally, Europe operating as a more united entity makes a lot of sense.

Dear Harun, I searched for a definition of Cultural Marxism. I found the following one: "The meaning of 'cultural Marxism' is much more unequivocal and has nothing to do with conspiracies. This concerns the use of typical Marxist thought schemes about oppression and victimization in other domains than the economic one (for which Marx originally intended them). This is a way of thinking, no conspiracy or secret pursuit of cultural hegemony. Gramsci has nothing to look for here.

What is the thinking plan? That in which you reduce a complex social reality to one in which two groups are diametrically opposed: on the one hand the oppressors, on the other hand the oppressed, and between them a large no man's land. The main difference? Marx was about production relations, today it is about ethnic, cultural and sexual oppression. At Marx, the outcasts of the earth were the factory workers; in 'cultural Marxism' it is a rainbow coalition of oppressed minorities."

EU research found that polarisation between groups of human beings is all over Europe, for instance Muslims against non-Muslims, poor against rich, females against males and people of colour and blacks against "whites" etc. Polarisation increased in super-diverse western cities, where the old majority is not any-more a majority, where the sum of minority groups is the majority.

I raised my comments against this contextual background. I hope that I clarified my point of view, Carl

"You will never change things by fighting against the existing reality. To change something, create a new model that will make the existing model obsolete. " (Buckminster Fuller)

The European Union is an international organization, not a federal union like the United States. It resembles the United Nations, having a unique political system in the world, with a single economic market (the European Common Market) and a single currency (the euro). It has a number of powers and powers granted by its States to the institutions of the Joint Union.

Suad, I'm not convinced that the EU "resembles the UN," or should aspire to. The required mobility of the work force, the common currency and monetary policy, the common set of industrial standards, are way beyond what the UN attempts to do, and are instead consistent with the way the US operates. In short, the UN does not create mandates that affect individuals in every country, like the EU does.

In fact, I might suggest that the EU resembles the US, way back when the US was in its infancy. During the days when the citizens still considered themselves as citizens of their home state first, then US citizens. (The mobility of the work force has made such sentiments mostly a thing of the past, although a few people do still have this mindset.)

The other point is, as much as the EU does resemble the UN, as opposed to the US, that's not necessarily an advantage. There is also resentment for the way the UN pretends to operate as an unelected "world government," especially from countries that contribute the most to the UN. If the EU has to survive as a single entity, they should be looking at the US, not the UN, in my opinion.