Two takes (via wood s lot):
In The Joys of Euro-lish, British MP Paul Flynn expresses his dismay over the “new language evolving in European forums” where a lowest-common-denominator English is the coin of discourse:
The prospect is bleak but inevitable. Eurolish is incurably regressive. Europeans will speak to Europeans in a… turgid verbiage that dulls the brains and enfeebles inspiration. Stripped of invective and passion, no poetry will ever be written in Eurolish. On the other hand it’s unlikely that anyone will ever declare war in it.
In response, netlexblogger has a more upbeat attitude in The fun of Eurolish as a second language:
The imperious necessity in which we find ourselves of mastering a common language at the age of globalisation is so obvious that the culture making it possible is often disregarded, which is certainly regrettable, but inevitable.
The reason is that the British language fails to convey our national vernacular experience. Idiomatic expressions that make perfect sense to people who grew up speaking English can be bewildering to someone who grew up speaking another language.
It is likely that Euro-English will evolve in the way described by Paul Flynn, from academic english to a common “lingua anglica“.
But once the English language has fallen from the etheral atmosphere of immemorial purity into flattened pidgin expurged from the affects which could possibly mislead the translator, newcomers to English could well “creolize” Euro-English.
They would filter their own foreigness through language-independent skills, establishing new lines of communication with other cultural groups.
As words, expressions and gestures that mean one thing in a given culture may mean something else in another culture, they would forge their own language codes and rules of behaviour.
Eurolish will contribute to give birth to a new sociabilty, because just as institutions, language can give speakers a sense of belonging to the group.