But it is hard to reassure the many Europeans who struggle to see how diversity can be truly dealt with. There is a growing sense that a certain way of life is about to disappear.
Simply telling people that diversity must be embraced, or that immigration is needed due to demographic change, overlooks the lack of preparation, the concrete difficulties and the fears that can arise from ignorance or stereotyping. It is a safe bet that politicians will not supply the answers — they are too stuck on short-termism.
Nor will high-minded reminders of European charters be enough. If a promising dynamic can be created, it must come from civil society — and serious media organisations have a role to play. This would help to prepare for a future where our democracies can resist populist pressures or social disintegration. Saying that migrants, whatever their cultural background, must abide by laws as much as be protected by them, may be stating the obvious but it also raises sensitivities and should therefore be part of that debate.
Using online platforms and the linking of communities beyond borders, to share experiences, life stories, to map out problems areas and the ways people can work to overcome them could be a good option. Our continent is changing, but the debate is happening within national silos.
Why is it that those who help refugees in Calais have so few organised contacts with those who do the same in Berlin? Diversity, as experienced across Europe, by Europeans and non-Europeans alike, is the next looming horizon.
In France the gap is 29 points and in Poland it is 21 points. Cultural identity is also a partisan issue in a few countries. People of different generations disagree on the importance of customs and traditions to national identity. In eight of 10 nations surveyed, those ages 50 and older are more likely than those ages 18 to 34 to say adhering to native culture is very important.
This is the case in the UK 24 percentage points , France 23 points and Greece 21 points. People with less education are more likely than those with a higher level of education to believe that customs and tradition are very important to nationality. This educational differential is 20 points in France and Spain and 19 points in the UK. No European country accords citizenship based simply on the fact that a person was born in the territory of that state.
In some nations ideology plays a major role in such views. People on the right are much more likely than those on the left to say place of birth is very important in Greece 31 percentage points , the UK 24 points and Italy 23 points. There is also a partisan divide on birthright nationality in several countries.
Education also plays a role in public views on the relationship between being native born and national identity. In eight of the 10 EU countries, people with less education are significantly more likely than those with more education to believe that it is very important to have been born in their country to be considered a true national of that society. This educational differential is 24 percentage points in the UK, 23 points in Spain and 19 points in Poland.
In Europe today, there are widely disparate views on the importance of religion to national identity. In four of the 10 countries surveyed, strong majorities believe it is important to be Christian to be considered a true national.
Views of the importance of religion to nationality often divide along generational lines. People ages 50 and older are significantly more likely than those ages 18 to 34 to say that being a member of the dominant religion in their country is very important to national identity.
The differential is 19 percentage points in the UK, 16 points in Germany and 15 points in Hungary. People on the right of the ideological spectrum are also often more likely than those on the left to voice the view that religion is very important to nationality. This right-left divide is particularly prominent in Greece 26 points and Poland 21 points. In times of uncertainty, good decisions demand good data.
Please support our research with a financial contribution. It organizes the public into nine distinct groups, based on an analysis of their attitudes and values. Even in a polarized era, the survey reveals deep divisions in both partisan coalitions. On 30 August , the Commission put forward a proposal to Parliament and the Council calling for to be designated the European Year of Cultural Heritage, in response to prior requests from both institutions. The proposal was adopted in the first half of It provides for the physical return of cultural objects that have been unlawfully removed from the territory of one Member State after January and sets out cooperation mechanisms and proceedings to secure the return of unlawfully removed objects.
The objective of these prizes is to recognise the excellent quality and success of European activities in these fields and put the spotlight on the work of artists, musicians, architects, writers and those working in the field of cultural heritage. The New European Bauhaus will unfold in three phases: design, delivery and dissemination. The initiative will also develop a framework of funding sources to align with the multiannual financial framework MFF.
Parliament has, in various resolutions [6] , expressed its long-standing interest in the potential of the cultural and creative sectors CCS and the prospect of developing them.
In its resolution on a coherent EU policy for cultural and creative industries, Parliament called for a strategic approach to unleash the potential of the CCS [7] and asked the Commission to develop a comprehensive and long-term industrial policy framework for them. It called for measures to be put in place to improve working conditions in these sectors, for example by including them in the Youth Employment Initiative and by providing funds to facilitate careers, entrepreneurship and training.
Parliament has also pushed for a strategic approach to the role of culture in external relations. In , it issued a resolution on intercultural dialogue [8]. The resolution proposed several initiatives, grouped under four strands: objectives; governance and tools; a people-to-people approach; and the EU global strategy. MEPs recommended developing an effective EU strategy for international cultural relations, providing a separate EU budget line for this; launching an EU programme on international mobility and creating a Cultural Visa Programme.
In the previous legislature, it shaped the European Heritage Label and the Directive on the return of cultural objects. Parliament took up the subject of cultural heritage in its resolution towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe [10] , emphasising the role cultural heritage plays in growth and jobs. The report called on the Commission and the Member States to step up their action to protect and promote linguistic diversity in the digital age, include the cultural heritage of minorities present in Europe in any discussion on European heritage, and support traditional European and pan-European cultural events.
In negotiations on the and MFFs, as well as throughout the annual budgetary procedures, Parliament fought consistently for increased budgetary allocations for the cultural and creative sectors, in particular for the Creative Europe programme.
On 14 December , an agreement securing EUR 2. As regards its amendments to the Commission proposal on the Creative Europe programme voted on in plenary in March , Parliament proposed that funds be distributed to different programme strands in percentages rather than figures, ensuring a special allocation for cooperation projects in the cultural sector.
0コメント