Peace and prosperity in Europe: anyone who remembers the zero hour of 1945 and all that went before it feels grateful every day for these achievements. We also know who and what can take credit for the flourishing landscapes which have replaced trenches and ruins. Above all, it is the people of Europe who have learnt the lesson of history and worked vigorously to create a better world. But then there was also the USA, safeguarding and promoting the new opportunities of the postwar era. NATO and the Marshall Plan are code words for the commitment for which we Europeans are obliged to be eternally grateful. Both the actions of the people and the USA's assistance have now been strengthened and made lasting by the process of European unification, itself one of the remarkable achievements of recent decades.

And yet precisely this process has made headway only falteringly, subject to detours and prone to occasional accidents. Churchill's splendid vision of 1945 fell on ground on which, to be sure, some flowers bloomed but where no-one had the courage – or found the right conditions – to pave the way to this royal road. There has never been political union in Europe. Should there be? This is my question here. If we do not believe in a world spirit – a spirit which was expressed in Churchill's speeches in Strasbourg and Zurich and which, inevitably if not always recognisably, clears the way for a United States of Europe – then we must ask why we should aspire to the ‘ever closer union’ of Europe as set out in the Treaty of Rome which established the European Economic Community (EEC).