Luuk van Middelaar, political philosopher and adviser/speechwriter to European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, said he is always struck by the strength of the binary, black-and-white logic of seeing the EU as either “good” or “bad”.

He remarked that this logic appears to be strongest at opposite ends of the spectrum: those who say we’re heading for either a break-up or much closer integration tend to be strong supporters of one of those options (i.e. fervent Eurosceptics or federalists).

Given the political logic of European integration, i.e. bringing together different countries in a common enterprise, tensions inevitably exist and must be dealt with, said van Middelaar.

Van Middelaar outlined three concentric spheres of how European countries have organised their relations:

• The European Union is a successor to the old diplomatic world of the European concert, marked by international peace conferences like Vienna and Versailles: a Europe of war and peace, national interests and border disputes. That world is still lingering on the outskirts: look at the situation regarding Serbia/Kosovo. This is the ‘outer sphere’ of Europe.
• The EU institutions and associated actors: this ‘Brussels bubble’ is the inner sphere of Europe: a world based on rules, treaties and institutions.
• The third sphere is “something in between”: some EU countries have discovered over time that they share more than the institutions and policies covered by the Treaties – they are a club in the world, whose common interests bring them together and force them to act as partners: particularly during crises, when the action they take sometimes falls outside the Treaties.

“This middle world is most clearly embodied by the European Council,” said van Middelaar, arguing that this world is not solely about national interests, but it is not solely about the European interest either.

It is about the co-existence of EU and national interests: embodying the tension between the unity and diversity of EU member states, he said.