The reason for this initiative is to emphasise the importance of the fundamental values of European society as a basis for the views of the CCMI. Indeed, such a position, if it can be defined and articulated in a meaningful way, will be relevant not only to CCMI but to the Committee as a whole and, indeed, to all the institutions of the EU. This wider relevance should therefore be recognised as being of pan-European value in establishing cohesion. This, however, is not enough.

Cohesion is weakening. It is threatened by many things, most of which are contained within three ‘isms’; individualism, nationalism and globalism. None of these things are intrinsically divisive. An individual can have a clear sense of identity, be based in their community and nation and still regard themselves as an internationalist, as a citizen of the world who works towards a common future for all its peoples. Yet it is not easy to hold this position. It requires clear thinking, a frame of reference which can evaluate the flood of data and opinion with which we are deluged and a respect for objective truth. It also, quite legitimately, must challenge hypocrisy, inequality and the misuse of power.

The increasing difficulty in doing this has encouraged an alternative perspective, for example as found in the later and quite influential work of Oriana Fallachi and other commentators and thinkers. This view argues that globalisation is a significant threat to European identity. This view of European identity, it is argued, has to be reinforced by a return to ‘traditional’ values, a rejection of some aspects of integration and rediscovery of a common culture. Such a view is often found in the thinking and programme of the ‘nationalist’ parties that have emerged and strengthened across Europe during the last twenty years. Some 20% of those voting in national elections across the EU in the last 5 years have voted for such parties – a figure that is increasing as time passes. Such parties cannot be ignored – they are legitimately represented in the European Parliament and it would be unusual if aspects of their thinking were not also subscribed to by some members of the EESC.

This political trend is undoubtedly important, not least because it proposes an approach to European ‘values’ which diverges from the mainstream and which is becoming increasingly influential. It can no longer be assumed that the phrases ‘fundamental values of European society’ or ‘the common good and the general interest’ command universal agreement as to content. As was pointed out in the GIII preparatory meeting we cannot assume that members and delegates in CCMI share a common perception on these issues – in fact it is almost certain that there will be disagreement.

Therefore an approach to ‘values’, whist absolutely essential to the future of Europe, needs careful handling. It will no longer be sufficient to simply appeal to the preamble to the Treaty with its references to the pre-eminence of “the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, from which have developed the universal values of the inviolable and inalienable rights of the human person, freedom, democracy, equality and the rule of law.” What had been understood in the past by such phrases is now open to re-interpretation in the light of the perceived ‘threat’ from globalization, multiculturalism and Islamisation, factors which are often – quite arbitrarily – grouped together and used to symbolize an undesired and uncertain future.

Faced with our rapidly changing world a restatement of ‘values’ is essential but now the challenge is to establish the compatibility of what were formerly ‘European’ values (if it was ever legitimate to use this phrase given its overtones of cultural superiority) with a set of global values for humanity without which we will never be able to agree on a common way forward for our world.

Therefore, should our discussion about ‘values’ be conducted on the basis of the following questions?

In today’s world can Europe claim as relevant an approach based on European values unless those values are also recognised and endorsed as also being global values based on a global ethic?

Given the diversity of views in our societies and as represented in our legislative and governance bodies and in institutions like our own is it possible to evolve a common ethic under which some divergence in national, cultural and personal application is possible whilst maintaining the common good and the general interest?