The EU states that all languages in Europe, new as well as old, should have equal status. What should this mean in practice?

The 25 official languages of the 27 member states of the European Union have equal rights. These languages are Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Luxembourgish, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish. The languages of each member state are official and working languages of the European Parliament and the Commission in Brussels.
There has never been a close link between language and state in Europe, three of Belgium's languages are in use, Dutch, French and German, and two of Finland's, Finnish and Swedish, whereas the only language from Spain is Spanish, even though there are more speakers of Catalan than of Danish or Finnish. Nationally and internationally demography is less important than political influence. Many languages in Europe have no EU rights.
EU languages have widen the ongoing processes of creating a "union" of EU states, a new super national economic and political unity. Language is a important political issue, as it is a profound symbol of national and personal identity. As language, culture and education are in principle matters for individual member states rather than the Union, language policy at the super national level is mainly covert. As some languages are more "international" than others the equality of the 25 languages has in fact always been a myth.
The existing rights to translation are essential, because documents coming from Brussels have the force of law in member states, prioriting over national legislation. The right to a translator is often limited, except for senior politicians and Members of the European Parliament. Working documents are seldom available in all 25 languages. In 1970, 60% of texts in the Commission were prepared in French, and 40% in German. In 1989 the figures were French 50%, German 9%, and English 30%. By 1997 the figures were French 40% and English 45%, leaving only a few in other languages. In external communication, English is generally used. These figures show the hierarchy of languages in Brussels and Strasbourg. English has gradually went under the monopoly of French. This has happened during a period when successive British governments have kept "Europe" at a distance. The language policies of EU institutions are influenced by many factors, the most important of which is globalisation. The advance of English reflects American commercial, political and military power, and the impact of Hollywood, CNN and McDonald's. The British have always been keen to use English as a strategic and commercial asset. English is the most widely learned foreign language in Europe, because Britain's partners recognise it as is a necessary communicative tool. In reality English is no longer a foreign language in several member states. It is widely used among other countries in many fields, and increasingly as the common language of big business. It is a fact of working and social life for many EU citizens.
The market forces that are propelling English forward impact on the vitality and viability of other languages. English represents some of their areas, despite EU treaties and summit meetings proclaiming a diversity. The Amsterdam Treaty, reads: "The Community shall take cultural aspects into account in its action under the provisions of this Treaty, in particular in order to respect and to promote the diversity of its cultures". The Nice summit acted on this to accept a programme to strengthen the European film industry. In several member states there are voices protesting against Americanisation and cultural and linguistic equalization. The Swedish government recently commissioned a major research of Swedish in all key issues in Sweden and in European Union institutions. The study confirms how English is taking over from Swedish. Work is now under way to ensure that Swedish remains a "complete" language. Some countries are registering that the advance of English is a problem, and identifying methods to strengthen local languages. No one is suggesting that English should not be effectively learned and used, but policy should ensure that people learn and use English in addition to other languages rather than at their expense. Language policy should be taken seriously because it is likely that big business is doing so. French language protection actions are in conflict with the principle of a common market with free movement of goods, services, labour and capital. Such an interpretation could soon lead lawyers to stimulate national language legislation, and demand only English market throughout the EU. Countries have applied for EU membership had probably assumed that their languages would have the same rights as other official languages. This is most unlikely, because the present interpretation and translation services are ineffective.
What is urgently needed is clarification of the criteria that should guide an equitable language policy, and ways that permit real equality of communication between speakers of different languages. We need to see a reality. We need to see a coming together with the important constituencies in the political, business, academic, cultural and human rights worlds. There is a need for analysis of how to guarantee effective and democratic strategies for increased multilingualism. In this way English can be appropriated without other languages being marginalised.