The communication of different opinions is indeed a necessary thing, however, I have the feeling that this is not always done in a constructive way. Usually the (national) media is only interested in the national position and not so much in a European compromise or European “interest”…

@ Tanchi

It is true, in Eastern Europe the EU is often seen as a something very positive which also has the capacity to fix national mistakes. At the same time this is also dangerous because you loose capacity to criticize the EU and your national politicians who are often involved in the decision making.

@Nosemonkey

Historical myths – Yes, indeed an interesting field especially when these myths really inform political debates and in the case of the UK even form a kind of “philosophical basis” for anti-EU discourses.

Of course one could also argue that these historical legislative myths are part of the national historical conscience (usually a even bigger myth) that still seems to matter in framing public discourses. Of course this exists in every state although the degree in which they inform EU discourses probably varies greatly, at least that is my guess… In any case, a topic I need to get into

Not sure about elsewhere, but in the UK there’s one MASSIVE national legislative myth – that of the Magna Carta. Despite the fact that it has been amended countless times down the centuries and had various sections repealed (to the extent that pretty much none of it remains in force), large chunks of the British population seem to think that it still grants them certain inalienable rights. Even though it never did in the first place – it only granted rights to the aristocracy and larger landowners.

A related one is the myth of the 1689 Bill of Rights (itself inspired at the time by the myth of Magna Carta), from which some anti-EU types tend to quote the following: “no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm” – this, of course, to declare Britain’s membership of the EU illegal. The fact that the Bill of Rights was passed into law by King William III, a Dutchman, and that a quarter of a century later the crown would pass to King George I, a German who spoke no English, seems to be missed by them…

of course just another point which has to be combined with etg. mentioned in the blog…

For me one key point is that the different opinions need to be communicated (that’s why headlines like “Germany against economic government” work well).

This can also be seen in regard to your point 1) the Europa.eu website. Why does Margot Wallström’s website not feature any external document about the European Union’s communication policy? Why can’t I find the EESC opinion on Margot’s site? Debate needs controversy and controversy needs different opinions.