Like earlier treaties, the premise of the Lisbon treaty is that unity is the best protector of diversity. The Union will always retain its member states’ distinctive national flavours because the member governments themselves determine the red lines that must not be crossed. When collective interests are being defined, it is the interests of the nation state that are predominant, and that safeguard has been maintained through successive treaties by the community model.

Although the Lisbon treaty therefore satisfactorily addressed the whole diversity question, we can nevertheless expect increasing pressure on the fault line separating supranational and the national interests for a variety of economic and social reasons. Unresolved problems that include disputes between member states, and the need for the Union to find new solutions seem very likely to intensify people’s doubts about whether we’ve got the right balance between democracy and diversity.

The emergence of shared values has become central to the EU experience; a shared path has been built on member states’ different histories, experiences, references and symbols. The result is a European Union whose supranational content is common to the citizens of all its member states. That leads us to the question of whether or not we Europeans yet have shared political affiliations. It’s an ongoing quest and a vitally important one because it’s the only way the nations of Europe can remain authors of their own identities while avoiding conflict with the identities of others.

Public debate is the key to creating shared political affiliations. It can clarify which aspects of diversity are in need of protection, and it can help determine how that protection can be achieved. Debate can thus be a motivating force that creates common expectations, makes our shared interests more apparent and helps to further shape Europe’s collective identity.

Economic and Monetary Union offers a good example of how our success in resolving the problems that surrounded the common currency created a broader awareness of many other issues relating to the currency. There is now a likely Europe-wide debate on whether the euro contributes to inflation, whether its high value puts European exports at risk and whether the interest rates set by the European Central Bank are facilitating home-buyers. All of which goes to show that a forum for debate emerges automatically when a common policy exists and issues arise, that are of concern to the public.

The example of the euro also underlines that progress towards a more democratic and united Europe does not result from grand plans for the future, but rather from specific solutions to common issues. EMU and the Schengen Agreement, coupled with the common foreign and defence policies identified in the new treaty, are mapping out new ways to respect and transcend national identities. They are initiatives that ensure union in diversity, and they also generate a European public forum. Such joint efforts, consciously fostered by the European Union, will gradually weave a unifying web carrying the integration project further forward.

The degree to which we Europeans can maintain our diversity will depend on the progress we make towards greater unification, the creation of a European public forum and the deepening of our democracy. The relationship between the supranational and the national can be developed creatively so long as our joint efforts tackle real problems of concern to Europe’s citizens. And that in turn is why the Lisbon treaty is such an important next step; it would allow the Union to become more effective, both by giving it the means to deal with its existing problems, and by promoting the sort of common endeavours that will enable us to progress further in the years ahead.