"All my life, I have been intrigued by the gap between appearances and reality. Things are never quite as they seem", Norman Davies.

EESC info: Europe is at a turning point, preparing the Conference on the Future of Europe. In the course of the changes that have taken place in parallel with the pandemic crisis, some centrifugal forces have come to light, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, which may challenge European integration. How would you comment on this?

Norman Davis: As a historian, I should start by saying we are always at a turning point. There is always something changing, moving in different directions than one had thought. Actually, among the changes happening in western Europe in the last five years, the departure of the UK from the Union is the biggest. And in my view, the UK is disintegrating. I think there soon won't be a UK; something else will take its place. As for central Europe, we had no idea that a substantial part of the population was dissatisfied with the changes after 1989, and, of course, we had no name for that dissatisfaction. We hadn't heard of populism at that time. Furthermore, we didn't realize that things that started happening in Poland had parallels in other countries. There was no President Trump, no danger of Brexit at that time. Now we know we were wrong. These populist trends have parallels in many countries. The European Union itself, and international stability in general, are very much in question at the present time.

On the issue of centrifugal forces within the EU, I would say that those forces, which undoubtedly exist, are not located exclusively around Hungary and Poland; they can also be found in the heart of the eurozone, pulling the richer countries of northern Europe away from the more fragile economies of the South.                                                                                                            

EESC info: We are talking about the Conference on the Future of Europe. In your view, what should be the most important element of the EU's work?

N.D: The most important element is the culture of cooperation, which opposes the older idea that individual nations are allowed to follow, as the French once called it, their "égoisme sacré", the sacred selfishness of individual countries, which was once the norm. World War II showed that the right to behave selfishly, and to pursue one's "national interests" regardless, was (and still is) destructive to all; the culture of cooperation as opposed to national egoism is the most precious achievement of the European community. It is quite clear that some of the governments and groups want to return to the pursuit of their national interests. But I am deeply convinced they are mistaken. If I may use an old English phrase, "if we don't hang together, we'll all hang separately". And this is the clue to the survival of the EU movement and of the long peace we have enjoyed.

EESC info:  President François Mitterrand and Chancellor Helmut Kohl are well-known as two of history's major political figures. In your view, are there a couple of similar countries that could lead the way against national egoism? Who can be a leader in the EU?

N.D: No, I think that the leadership in the EU has been weak, we have seen that with the pandemic, which has not been well- managed in Europe. Franco-German leadership may have been essential at the beginning of the European movement 50 years ago. In the Europe of the Six, France and Germany were by far the largest members – if that's not too hard on Italy – and it was natural that France and Germany, who led the process of post-war reconciliation, should have provided the initial drive for the project. But that it is no longer the case. There are 27 members now, and a need for greater cohesion. Hopefully, leadership will emerge from different sources and not be merely Franco-German. There are good reasons for that.

France is one of the countries most threatened by populism. Marine Le Pen is on the march and Mr Macron is not very strong politically. It's unlikely that France will be able to take the lead. Similarly, Germany is in considerable turmoil with the departure of Angela Merkel. Europe must find effective leadership elsewhere very soon. Otherwise, the future will be a scene from a talk show rather than an action programme.

EESC info: What is your opinion of civil society's role in the debate on the Future of Europe? On 19 April 2021, the European Commission and the European Parliament launched a platform for citizens asking them to send their questions about their dreams on the future of Europe. What role do you think citizens can play in this debate?

N.D: Obviously society has a role to play, but society generates thousands of different opinions and cannot ever produce effective action on its own. Society has to be led by political leaders, who understand people's fears and aspirations, but in the absence of this leadership society itself falls victim to charlatans and extremists. Clearly, it is a good thing to solicit citizens' views but the political game demands more. Society has to be inspired and mobilised by dynamic leaders, parties, movements and of course good ideas.

EESC info: What is your view on the possible results of the Conference on the Future of Europe? Any prospects for progress during the French Presidency? Do you remember what happened after the 2002-2003 European Convention chaired by President Giscard d'Estaing, which produced a European Constitution only to see France and the Netherlands vote "No" in 2005?

N.D: I am a historian, not an astrologist. I can't tell you what will happen in the future but in general, conferences are not decision-making bodies, unless they are executive conferences like Yalta or Potsdam, which made important international decisions. What most conferences can do is to set the mood, set the political climate, the atmosphere, encouraging or discouraging the participants. Hopefully, a good conference will improve the mood and encourage leaders to engage in action.  But in themselves they rarely do.

Yes, I remember Mr Giscard d'Estaing well. (He came from a village in Auvergne where I had some good friends.) But can the failure of the EU Constitution be blamed on the Convention? There was more to it than that. Someone did not do their homework.

EESC info: 1 May was the 17^th anniversary of the EU enlargement, 10 new Member States joined the EU followed by three others later on. Seventeen years after this accession what is your view on this development?

N.D: The great enlargement carried many high hopes, namely that peace and prosperity – which western Europe had been blessed with for the previous 30-40 years – would spread to the other end of the continent, and in many ways this has been true. And it is very hard to believe that some countries which voted for enlargement, for joining the EU with massive support from the population, today have governments with completely the opposite beliefs. I talked earlier about the culture of cooperation as opposed to national egoism, but this lesson has not been learned by everyone.

EESC info: As a British citizen, you are now living in a third country, what lessons can Europe learn from Brexit?

N.D: I wish I knew. In my view Brexit was a terrible mistake, and will probably destroy the country in which I was born. Incidentally, I am also a Polish citizen, and my wife is Polish. We have a foot in both camps. As I always tell my Polish friends, the situation in Poland might be bad, but it is not as threatening as in Great Britain. Poland is not going to disintegrate any time soon, but the UK will probably do. I had an online lecture a couple of days ago for an audience in the city of Armagh in Northern Ireland; and the trajectory is quite clear; the trend in Northern Ireland is moving towards joining the Republic. Brexit destroyed the union with the EU, but it is also destroying England's union with Northern Ireland and Scotland, and in due course with Wales. Brexit was driven from the start by selfish English nationalism, and will end up producing a poorer, weaker England, stripped of the support of other neighbour nations on our Isles. Things that don't hold together will fall apart. My view is that all these populist movements, are, as one says, "sawing off the branch of the tree on which they are sitting", preparing a disaster for themselves. As yet, I can't see which way things are moving in the EU, except to say that it has lots of problems. Prior to Brexit, there was a race on between the UK and the EU, "which one will collapse first". After Brexit, I know that the UK is winning that miserable race: the EU is not likely to collapse before the UK does. Sitting on this island I have feelings of envy that Europe' s problems are less acute than ours.

EESC info: Can we follow how President Joe Biden is handling rapid changes and reforms in the United States. Do you think it might have consequences for the EU?

N.D: Well, yes. The defeat of Donald Trump was the biggest blow that populism has received in the last ten years. Trump was the global leader of the populists; he enjoyed the adoration of certain regimes in Europe, admiring the way he defined and vilified the existing order; and he lost. Biden has come in and he is doing surprisingly well. Time is short, and it is difficult to know whether he is going to succeed in a major way or not. I wish him "a fair wind". As you know the western world, Europe plus North America, constitutes one political and civilisational block, and the USA is the biggest and strongest country in that block. What happens in America affects all of us.

 EEESC info: My last question, what are you preparing now? Maybe a new book?

N.D: I am always preparing a new book. I can mention two. One will be published in a few days' time by Penguin Books in London; it is a biography of King George II, a "continental history" of a British monarch, who reigned from 1727-60 and whom I call "George Augustus". He was the sovereign ruler of a composite state made up of three parts, the Kingdom of Great Britain, the Kingdom of Ireland, and the Electorate of Braunschweig-Lüneburg, known as Hanover, in Germany. He was an important Prince-Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, as well as being a British king, and he ruled for many years in the period when Britain became both the world's top naval power and the chief promoter of the slave trade. Most British people are unfamiliar with the idea that a British monarch could simultaneously be the ruler of continental state. So I have written a short book which should be quite a bombshell.

Now that George Augustus is off my hands, I am completing a history of Austro-Hungarian Galicia – one of those "vanished kingdoms", which no longer exist. Galicia, whose territory lies today partly in Poland and partly in Ukraine, was inhabited before 1918 by three large communities of Poles, Ukrainians and Jews. But, since it was broken up, its memory has been distorted by national prejudices. The Poles write about it as if it was Polish, the Ukrainians as if it was primarily Ukrainian, and Jewish historians sometimes give the impression that Galicia was a separate Jewish planet. In my view, historical Galicia can only be accurately imagined and reconstructed by combining all three elements within the Austrian context, and I try to achieve the desired effect by making copious use of contemporary records and memoirs.

EESC info: Thank you very much

N.D: Thank you very much, too! Very enjoyable!