 Right, so Europe, o deall! How do you solve a problem like Europe? That's a cultural reference to the sound of music. How do you solve a problem like Europe? And I can tell you in advance that Europe is not like the nice ladies in sound of music. I'm going to go through the hand, I said it's why it's so important to have it. You see that in point one I summarise the whole of European history over the last two centuries in three Greek words. Ethos, pathos and bathos. Progressive European civilization from 1815 to 1914 was full of ethos, full of energy and spirit, amazing period in history of the world, Europe developed fabulously in every conceivable way, led to considerable extent by economics, obviously at development of industry and commerce. Then between 1914 and 1945 there was an unfortunate episode that I called pathos, suffering, when we very nearly destroyed ourselves finally and completely physically. Then after 1945, I'm calling it pathos, we sort of went to sleep as a civilisation. We were exhausted. It was a spiritual crisis in Europe after 1945. We'd given birth to modern civilisation Europe had, so we were in some sense exhausted. What else is there to do? We'd almost destroyed modern civilisation, so we felt shame, there was a sense of shame in Europe in which people from other parts of the world sometimes remind us of the shame of 1914 to 1945. So if you look back, what happened in the 19th century that led to the 20th century? Well, there are only about 100,000 books on that subject, but in point three I suggest what happened. What had gone wrong with the European history in the 19th century? And I list here four things that went wrong. The first manic intra-national cultural and social progress propelled by economic development and it was manic within our society, man. Secondly, unequal and faltering intra-national political development, what I call neurotic revolutionism, Europe politically in the 19th century was a sort of manhouse of self-reforming and self-re-creating. And then a catastrophic confusion of pathological nationalism, patriotism, good thing, nationalism, pathological nationalism, a very bad thing, and that became mixed with the crudest form of statism leading to phenomena we know of in the 20th century. And fourthly, international atavism, primativism in the great and ancient game of diplomacy and war that just went on despite all the European progress. We were still messing around in diplomacy and war. Well, point four after 1945, European integration was designed to abolish all these geological faults, everybody knew them, at a single stroke. And it was what I call here a monolithic off-hable of inherited contradictions, off-hable then the Hegelian word for the resolution of a dialectic, overcoming the surpassing of a dialectical opposition. So that's what European integration was seeking to do, a great off-hable of all our faults. And the way it would be done says point five is unification would be propelled by the overwhelming energy of the economy. Political structures would be made uniform. We underestimate the extent to which there has been revolution from above in Europe, peaceful revolution from above. The European Union has been transforming the internal political systems all over Europe. Now particularly in Central and Eastern and Southern Europe. And then rational statism, I can hardly bring myself to utter those words because it's what we and the Americans most dislike in the world, rational statism, would overcome nationalism. The states would be rational enterprises. And communal government would replace diplomacy. Europe is supposed now to have given up diplomacy into say among itself. And we now have communal government in said where we fight over the tables of Brussels. So I'm now in point six want to ask what's caused the subsequent permanent crisis. I'll post 1945 European integration. You may not think there is a permanent crisis. I have been dealing with this for the last 40 years. I think there is a permanent crisis and what I suggest is an answer to that is that the authors of European integration overlooked some very big lessons of European history. If you look at European history in a much longer perspective than just oh what happened between 1914 and 1945, there are some big lessons of European history. And one has the feeling that the people who created the European Union simply didn't know them or had forgotten these lessons. And I list them, 10 of them here. The first is that the historical unification of the separate nations in Europe, whatever its economic aspect, and there was always an economic aspect to unification, was far from natural and repeatedly required the threat or use of force by governments. If you think of this country, the four elements of this country, the amount of violence and force involved in unifying this country was great. Similarly with Germany in the 19th century, force had to be used. It wasn't a natural process, Italy. Before Italy was united towards the end of the 19th century, there had to be wars in Italy in which other countries intervened. So unification is not a natural process. It requires enormous effort and perhaps violence. Secondly, the proud claim by the masters of European integration that it will prevent new wars. But it's they themselves who caused the wars. It's the political, military, economic and intellectual ruling classes, not the people who caused wars. So what the ruling classes needed after 1945 was tighter controlled by the people, not LUSA, and they needed cognitive therapy. They needed their ideas improving. And then thirdly, the passionate attachment of the peoples of Europe to their countless personal and cultural ethnic identities through history has been repeatedly used and abused and defiled by the manipulators of public power. But those identities are still passionately felt by ordinary people, feel desperately attached to them. And you may know that Harry Heineken and others have listed all the ethnic identities of Europe. There may be 80 or 90 ethnic identities in Europe. And all of those people feel very strongly, as the four countries in the United Kingdom feel extremely strongly about their separate ethnic identities. Fourthly, the government are rather sensitive to the conditions under which they will tolerate law and government, especially in liberal democracies, where immense volumes of public power must be justified and controlled through dense and subtle systems of political accountability. Our societies are fabulously complicated to make public power possible. Fifthly, the people are rather sensitive to the true nature of the economy. That is the way in which their energy and their property and their aspirations are organized in the common interest. That's what the economy is. And especially in capitalist societies, where the so-called division of labour central to Adam Smith's ideas is in fact a totalitarian integrating of labour in capitalist societies which ruthlessly determines everybody's everyday life. And sixthly, the economy itself is not a natural social phenomenon. Any idea that the EU would naturally develop from an economic base? It's not a natural phenomenon in the economy. It's a source of transforming social energy which is actually an intricate system of social struggle made possible by oceans of law and government and administration and politics. So that's not very natural, the economy. And then seventhly, the people have near horizon and far horizon individual and shared interests in the societies in which they find themselves, interests distinct from the short-term self-interest of politicians and the professional rationality of public officials. And very people do think about what they want in life. They don't wait to be told. And then ninthly, for the ordinary citizen to live within the uncage, as Max Weber called it, of a modern state system, is alienating enough with its manic regulation of every detail of daily life through law, government and administration. To live within two competing and overlapping and poorly integrated modern state systems is for ordinary people stuff of nightmares, awful thought. And then finally, and this is going to be one of the most important points that people know, even if the governments don't, that the extra-European world has changed fundamentally since 1945. They know that survival and prosperity are at risk now, our survival and prosperity are at risk as never before, except in time of war. And our survival and prosperity are now determined by the crude realities of a globalising world with new and menacing balances of power. European history was the history of balances of power in Europe. Now we're faced with global balances of power and almost uncontrollable global systems, social, cultural and economic. Ordinary people and certainly businessmen know that that's what the world is now like. And if we're going to survive and prosper, we're going to have to be very clever indeed. No, well then, point seven, we've all asked ourselves again and again the question, can we find a way to rescue European integration from the inside? And we've discussed this for years and years. I'm going to ask too much wider questions. What is now the state of European civilisation, separate thing, given the reality of European integration? And could a new idea of European civilisation rescue the EU from its personal crisis? And that's going to be my main theme obviously. So in point eight I say that at its best the European mind has been a source of ceaseless and unlimited creativity. The ethos of European civilisation at its best has been an ethos of broad-band human progress, social, political, economic and intellectual, artistic, cultural in the wider sense. That is what Europe has been like. And point nine, post 1945 European integration sought to overcome post 1815 history by freezing the social coexistence of European nations in a rationally constructed, internally changing, I call it motion without locomotion, a lot of motion but you're not going anywhere, motion without locomotion, and it's a constitutional stasis, standing in one place, wheeling around doing this, that and the other with one treaty after another. But it's not actually going anywhere except in itself getting more complicated. Well then, the primary engine point 10 of social change was to be an integrated economic system. Broad European progress if any would be incidental within the central organising model. And that dialectic goes back to Brion and Sresaman when they discussed European integration at the end of the 1920s the German Prime Minister wanted economic integration as the driving force. For obvious reasons, French Prime Minister wanted political integration, obviously fearing that Germany would probably win on an economic basis. In the First World War Germany had proposed creating a central and eastern European customs union. That was one of their aims in the First World War. So that was a dialectical opposition at the very heart of European integration between a political approach and an economic approach and we might may now be paying the price for the unresolved dialectical tension at this moment. Well I put in point 11 I say that all that is an arbitrary negation of the natural potentiality of European civilisation. So European civilisation, not the people of the government or anything else but civilisation has paid a high price for an outfable of its recent history. And now I analyse what that price is. The pathology of the contemporary European mind in point 12. The first is the narcissism of public power. Institutions of public power are obsessed with their own powers and their inter-save power relations. The narcissism of the four EU institutions meets the narcissism of the constitutional institutions that member states in clumsy cooperation and conflict. You have to remember public officials are very fond of power, particularly their own power. That is at the root of organised society. But I suggest here that a good society should aim to maintain a balance of power of people, government and economic interests. I believe that that is what a good society is like, what liberal democracy should be. But the European project school gives a false quasi-natural law charisma to rational bureaucratic domination, the self-imperialising of the European people. And I suggest that's the scissor in the psychology of public power. And if you look on the later page, page 4, at the bottom of page 4 there's a quotation, bottom of page 4, from Weber. That quote, natural law has thus been given, has been the collective term for those norms which owe their legitimacy not to their origin from a legitimate lawgiver, but to their eminent and teleological qualities. Well, the project of European integration for me has the character of natural law, as defined by Max Weber. It's eminent, i.e. deeply internal and teleological. It imagines it has a purpose. That dominates the whole of European integration, this quasi-natural law of immigration. And then in second malady, constitutional ignorance, one of the clearest lessons of history is that constitutions are organic. They grow from the deepest psychosexual layers of the societies they constitute. They don't survive and prosper constitutions if they're simply imposed and conserved by ruling class. So at that, I regard as a geological fault. Something wrong with the constitutionalism. I suggest we look at example 12.2, which should be on page 5. Oh, I forgot to mention to Toghffir was saying that in his day, there seemed to be self-colonising in Europe. European peoples already in those days seemed to be a sort of serfs of public power, colonised by public power. But let's look at 12.2 on the organic nature of constitutions. And quote, no system is also a system, but nicer. Llu sympathique, that's Tristan Zara, the founder of the otherism. That's the whole of the British constitution explained in a single sentence. No system is also a system, but nicer. That's the British constitution. We don't have a system. And Aristotle said this, quote, the task confronting the lawgiver and all who seek to set up a constitution of a particular kind is not only or even mainly to set it up. The problem is to keep it going. And then Burke's very famous words, deploying the French Revolution, quote, the science of constructing a commonwealth or renovating it or reforming it is like every other experimental science not to be taught a priori. Nor is it a short experience that can instruct us in that practical science because the real effects of moral causes are not always immediate. In states there are often some obscure and almost latent causes, things which appear at first view a little moment on which a very great part of its prosperity, constitution's prosperity or adversity, must most essentially depend. Quote, it has been the uniform policy of our constitution to claim and assert our liberties as an inheritance derived to us from our forefathers and to be transmitted to posterity. This policy appears to me the result of profound reflection or rather the happy effect of following nature which is wisdom without reflection. That's his very famous expression explaining the British constitution, wisdom without reflection. We've never really discussed the British constitution, it just happened. And then quote, our political system moves on through the varied tenor of perpetual decay, full renovation and progression. That's the organic view, famous Berkean organic view of a constitution. And you may feel that it's a little bit distant from the nature of European integration. And then quote, oh we haven't got to that yet. So that's constitutional ignorance as one of the problems, the pathological problems. And then the third problem is mass alienation. About 500 million people are citizens of the EU. I don't think any of them know it. That legal status is not internalized either in cultural ethnic subjectivity or in personal identity. National institutions acting in the EU system are seen as alien to that system. EU law and administration are seen as alien in the member states. National representatives in EU institutions are not seen as authentic. So the revolution of European integration, and you must remember it is a revolution that it has caused in Europe. But it wasn't a people's revolution. So it seems to the people of Europe to be unhistorical, unnatural, illegitimate. They can't be ordered to be anything else than they are. They've got to want it, the people. And then the fourth is, Axidii meets Melancholy meets Normre-Lism. After 1945, the European mind turned in on itself in a form of collective clinical depression. Axidii was identified by medieval religious psychologists as a pathology characterised by listlessness, failure of will power, spiritual emptiness. That is European nationalisation. At the moment, listless, no will power, spiritual emptiness. Melancholy was originally seen as essentially physical pathology by an state of the bile, which casts a negative and hopeless aura on everything that the mind experiences. Normre-Lism, a French word for navel, is a form of self-obsession that sees and judges everything that is other, only in relation to the self. Well, all of that is characteristic of Europe at the moment, European civilisation. It's hardly aware of the rest of the world. It's extraordinary. It lives in this sort of cocoon of the European Union. And fifthly and perhaps the most important in a way, fear of the future. Confidence in its own future is the determining characteristic of a thriving civilisation. The amazing historical achievement of the United States as a social system has been due, above all, to the internalising in the depth psychology of its terribly diverse people of a powerful sense of the potentiality of their shared future. In Europe, history seems to have left us behind. The sun of European civilisation has set, I'm going very much, perlusions and quotations here. The sun of European civilisation has set in the winter of our discontent, the hour of manoeuvre has flown. The future is painted in grey and grey. You never hear European people talking about the future of European civilisation, only about the future of the European Union. Well, if you look at 12, 4 and 5 of the examples, 12, 4 in Marys Richard Burton of Oxford. Kingdoms provinces and politic bodies are likewise sensible and subject to this disease, melancholy, as motorists in his politics have proved at large. As in human bodies, said he, there be diverse alterations proceeding from humans. So be there many diseases in a commonwealth which do as diversely happen from several distempers as you may easily perceive by their particular symptoms. And the person he calls Boteris is Italian political philosopher who wrote a book in answer to Machiavelli. And then Freud in second thing in 12, 4, if the development of civilisation has a far-reaching similarity to the development of the individual, and if it implies the same methods, may we not be justified in reaching the diagnosis that under the influence of cultural urges some civilisations or some epochs of civilisation, possibly the whole of mankind, have become neurotic. An analytic dissection of such neuroses might lead to therapeutic recommendations which could lay claim to great practical interest. Well, I must admit that that is what I'm attempting to do at the moment in analysis of the neurosis of Europe. And then 12, 5, this is the famous quotation from Hegel. When philosophy paints its grain gray, one form of life has become old, and by means of gray, it cannot be rejuvenated only known. The owl of Minerva, that's wisdom, takes its flight when the shades of night are gathering. He said that in about 1830, because people have always thought that European civilisation isn't an end, and it's very great fun again and again. Since about the year 400, we've thought that. And then Wordsworth, wither has fed the visionary gleam, where is it now, the glory and the dream, the romantic poet's view? Where's the gleam gone from our eyes as Europeans? Isn't it odd? Never see anybody thinking about European civilisation with a smile on their face. Right, well then the final of these maladies is six, application of global responsibility. So such a view of European civilisation is negative, dead view is a shocking dereliction of a duty owed to humanity. It's largely Europe that has made the world as it is, for better and for worse, through imperialism, through imitation of social forms, and through exporting, forming ideas like the future and progress. Those were ideas that developed, the world ideas of the future and progress, those marvellous books on the history of those ideas. They have a history, the ideas of the future and progress. And we absolutely seized these ideas particularly in the 19th century, and we thought progress is without limit, but now it's so clever we can progress forever. Well, what is Europe's responsibility now? Global responsibility. And I say here that many of the societies based on the ideas of democracy and capitalism, these European inventions, are works in progress as they are in Europe. We're struggling with democracy and capitalism in Europe as they are in America. What is its future? It is in a state of crisis, both democracy and capitalism, are in a state of crisis. So we've got to rethink them. In many countries democracy and capitalism are just a mask for governmental criminality. What are we doing about it? So Europe has a responsibility to contribute creatively to the healthy development of social, political, economic and cultural forms at all levels, including the global level. And I just mentioned in brackets the Middle East where they're held in the grip of the past. Now our job is to try and help to put an end to that. So in 13 I go terribly positive from here on in, I go very positive. So the cognitive therapy for suffering civilization could in my view completely change the nature of the European Union. If we reconstructed European civilization around the European Union, a positive, cheerful, forward-looking European civilization, then the European Union would recede a bit in consciousness. It's only a sort of state system. It would recede a bit in consciousness and we could take off again. And I just suggest three things here for doing that. And I've got three more Greek words to cheer us on. Beithos to Logos to Eros. And so the three things are these. We depose the EU system from its dominant position in European consciousness. The EU must go on. Obviously it's unstoppable now. But we've got to change its place in European consciousness. It isn't everything. It's just a state system in the middle. Secondly, we've got to reinstall European civilization in a central place. We've got to become proud again. It's been the most remarkable story. Why shouldn't it be remarkable in the future? European civilization. And thirdly, we've got to refocus the idea of European civilization in relation to the new world situation. We should be looking outwards. European civilization used to have tentacles all around the world, particularly through imperialism. So we were always global, in some sense, the European powers. But now we've got to refocus our idea of European civilization in relation, because they're now developing very powerful civilizations all over the world with a huge sense of their future. In particularly in places like China and India and Brazil, they have a terribly powerful view of the future. And that's driving them ahead. So we've got to take part in that. So those are the three things. And then in 14, I say that like variable stars, nations and civilizations have lighter and darker phases of their existence, the European mind has re-enlightened itself again. And again, there's no reason to suppose that the European mind's amazing power of self-creating and self-ordering and self-perfecting, logos, has simply been irretrievably lost. And then if you look at example 14 on page 5, you see something on this. I won't go through to that in quotations just at the moment, because we're running out of time. And Trong Thu's view of Am I Trong Thu or Am I a Butterfly? Famous puzzle of philosophy, because butterfly in Greek sense is the soul, the psyche, the mind, dynamism. And then another quotation from Freud each day, unusual for me to quote from Freud twice. I can't understand the man. Psyche is a Greek word and its German translation is soul, zele. Psychical treatment hence means treatment of the soul. One could thus think that what is meant is treatment of the morbid phenomena in the life of the soul. But this is not the meaning of the term. Psychical treatment wishes to signify rather treatment of originating in the soul. Treatment of psychical and bodily disorders, my measures which influence above all and immediately the soul of a man. And that, as you see in the tiny print here, is a re-translation, the dreadful British translator. Translated all that with a word in mind rather than soul. And Freud got very angry. He said, I'm not just talking about the mind. I'm talking about the soul, the whole being of a person. It's not just the mind, it's the whole being. And then under that you see Allot's law of tricentennial European enlightenment. The fact is they've happened every three centuries, European enlightenment. So an enlightenment in the 21st century is inevitable. It will happen in the 21st century. We're due for another enlightenment. And you, Allot, will be the cause and the vehicle of this new enlightenment, I hope. Right. So in point 16, I say we should feel pleasure and excitement, eros, in responding to the challenge of a new enlightening of the human mind, acting as pioneers in a new epoch in human self-evolving, exploring new ways of being happy, the old Greek question that makes us happy. So happier humans are postulated new species. The European mind will invent a new species of human being called a homo sapiens beartus, beartus meaning happy in the soul. That's what we must do. And I, in point, in example 16, oh my goodness, I quoted Freud for a third time, how terrible. When we just find fault with the present state of our civilization for so inadequately fulfilling our demands for a plan of life that shall make us happy, and for allowing the existence of so much suffering which could probably be avoided, we are undoubtedly exercising it proper right and not showing ourselves enemies of civilization, we may expect gradually to carry through such alterations in our civilization as will better satisfy our needs and will escape our criticisms. And then I refer to the Greek and Latin ideas of happiness which is not about cheerfulness, the pursuit of happiness that the Greeks said was our point in life, it's not happiness in the cheerfulness sense, it's happiness in the soul full integrated human being. And towards the end you see every nation has its own core of happiness just as every sphere has its center of gravity. And then a delightful quotation from Sylvia Plath, the American poet. As a quote, this is her discovering poetry. A spark flew off Arnold, that's Matthew Arnold poet, and shook me like a child I wanted to cry. I felt very odd, I'd fallen into a new way of being happy. And I believe that's what we in Europe, our greatest task is to find a new way of being happy.