For those coming in late, the superstate series so far:
- The danger of Jean Monnet
- Why EU superstate conspiracy theories are nonsense
- Four points and a question for eurosceptics who believe in the advancing EU superstate
- EU competence creep, the spectre of the superstate, and how governments actually work
As I’ve set out several times, I don’t see an EU superstate as a realistic possibility at any point in the next hundred years – not even the next three hundred years. For me, this isn’t a problem. Our grandchilren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren are unlikely to have any of the same concerns that we do today – and as the Anglo-Scottish union of 1707 has proven nicely, national/cultural identities are more than capable of surviving political union (hell, in Scotland’s case the national identity has arguably got even stronger since the Acts of Union). As such, if – over the course of the next few centuries – it proves to be in the best economic interest of the peoples of Europe for a “superstate” of some description to emerge from the present EU, so what? We’ll all be long dead.
But if such a superstate were to emerge, what would it look like? On one of those previous superstate posts (all of which have got healthy discussions in the comments – despite various sidetracks into insane detail about trucking and jam), helpful contributor French Derek argues that
“a federal state of 27 nations, each with their own languages, cultures, economic models, etc would be impossible to govern”
However, there are two cases where something similar to this has come about – Russia and India. Could these provide us with a vision of a future European superstate and clues about a model to follow?
Where the EU is made up of 27 member states with 23 official languages (and a bunch of other, less widely-used ones ranging from Cornish in the UK and Frisian in Denmark/Germany through more widely-used unofficial languages like Russian, Ukrainian and Romani), the Russian Federation is made up of 21 semi-autonomous republics (plus various self-governing cities, oblasts, okrugs, etc. making up a total of 83 federal subjects) and has 27 official languages), while India is made up of 28 states (and a few additional semi-autonomous regions) with 29 languages spoken by more than a million people (and 122 spoken by more than 100,000). Neither country – much like the EU – could be considered to be ethnically or religiously homogenous.
But the fact remains that both federal states continue to function, despite insanely complex internal demographics (far more so than the United States of America – the federal model most often used as a point of comparison with any future EU superstate). Naturally, the size of their populations are not entirely comparable – Russia’s population is c.145 million (about a third of the EU’s 500 million) and India’s c.1.17 billion (about twice the EU’s population), while the US’ population of c.300 million is about two thirds that of the EU. But still – India’s size is similar at 1.3 million square miles as opposed to the EU’s 1.6 million (compared the the USA’s 3.6 million and Russia’s 6.7 million) – so who’s to say that either population or geographical area is a factor in the functioning of an effective federal state?
Of course, in the case of both Russia and India (as well as, arguably, that of the US), their current situation came about after centuries of war and conquest – unlike the EU’s entirely peaceful formation – and whether either Russia or India can be considered to be effectively governed is another matter entirely. But Russia, India and the US nonetheless are all examples of large federal states that manage to work – in India and the US with more or less effective democracies that have both seen minorities elected to the highest office in the land (Obama in the US, obviously, but also Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a Sikh). In both India and Russia (and arguably some parts of the US as well, with the various secessionist movements), the various federal states and regions have often retained a strong sense of identity and autonomy – just as have Scotland and Wales (among others) in the much smaller federal state that is the United Kingdom. Both India and Russia also retain some violent paramilitary nationalist/minority elements that occasionally cause trouble (much like in the federal state of Spain with ETA, or the UK with the various Irish republican groups of the last few decades).
So large federal states with complex demographics can exist and function with the constituent parts retaining their own national/cultural identites.
But can they hold together? India was far larger than it now is when under British rule – once the Raj left 60 years ago, Partition tore the country in three in a bloody horror the tensions of which remain to this day. With the end of the Cold War and fall of the Communist Party, various parts of the old USSR (Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, etc. etc.) broke away from Russia – and other regions, most notably Chechnya, have continued as part of the federation only under threat of force. The United States was torn apart by civil war less than a century after its formation.
Indeed, it’s arguable that Russia and India continue to hold together largely due to fear of “the other” – the perceived threat of the West in Russia (hence the rampant popularity of the nationalistic Putin and co), and the genuine threat of Pakistan in India (the threat of India in turn acting as a unifying device for the fragile federation of Pakistan). The United States originally came together thanks to the threat of Britain, while England emerged from the Heptarchy under the threat of the Vikings, France from the threat of England, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire, modern federal Germany from a series of unifying wars with various neighbours under Bismark – and so on and so on.
In all cases, the sense of identity – “I am Russian”, “I am Indian”, “I am American”, “I am English”, “I am French”, “I am German” and all the rest – emerged due to a growing sense that another group of people were both somehow different and a threat. (Welsh national identity is a prime case in point – such a thing didn’t even exist until England started to invade what is now Wales, with the entire region made up of little more than warring tribes and principalities until they were given a unifying force, and existed as one kingdom only once – and then for just seven years – until the English conquest was completed and Wales in its current form was created. The same unifying, nationalising effect can also be seen in Scotland, where medieval English invasions likewise fostered a sense of Scottish national identity that helped bring the warring clans together.)
But what is the European Union’s threat? Who is “the other” for the EU that can foster a sense of European identity? With the current ongoing arguments over Turkish EU entry – not to mention the rise in tensions between Islam and the West of the last decade, the Islamist terror attacks in Madrid and London, and the perennial Europe-wide tensions over immigration – is “the other” for the EU going to be Islam? With the increasingly frequent stand-offs between the EU and Moscow over energy supplies and the autonomy of states on the European fringe, could it be Russia? For a while under the Bush administration and in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, it even looked like it might be America.
But whatever the “threat” – real or simply perceived – might turn out to be, it is hard to see a truly European identity begin to emerge without a greater sense of what being European is *not*. “We are American because we are not British”, “We are English because we are not Viking”, “We are Welsh/Scottish because we are not English” – this is how national identity has always begun.
So, while I disagree that the EU is too big and complex to form a superstate, I do maintain that such a thing remains unlikely. You can legislate to create political and economic integration, you can forge agreements between different territories and different cultures – but you cannot legislate or negotiate to build a sense of identity. Without that sense of identity – “I am American”, “I am Indian”, “I am Russian” – none of those three existing sprawling federations would be able to hold together. Of the EU’s 500 million citizens, how many really feel “European” to the extent that an American feels American, a Russian Russian or an Indian Indian? Hell – we can’t even agree on what Europe is – how can we know what it is to be European?
Interesting post…many identities are formed in opposition to something. Many people who consider themselves to be ‘European’ do so in opposition to the American way.
Maybe the problem with Europe is that nothing like it has come before. The concept of national identify, which is itself only a few centuries old, is of no use in trying to construct a European.
I do believe there is the possibility to do this, but what being European in the years to come, will have less to do with what it meant to be British, French, German etc 100-200 even 300 years ago as it will 100-200 or 300 years hence.
Identity is not static, and the process of European building aint either.
I promise not to derail your threads with comments about trucking or jam.
But I’m glad you’re continuing the series! Especially as you’re starting to touch upon my own area of particular interest: national identities and European identity.
I sincerely hope neither Islam nor Russia becomes the unifying “out-group” which brings Europeans together. Better for the unifier to be resource scarcity, or environmental degredation, or international crime, or global poverty, or any number of problems which affect everybody and require co-operation to solve.
Josef,
I’d suggest one problem with a cause, rather than an enemy, creating a European identity, is that all the problems you cite are global in nature. The best scale for them to be solved is global. Attempting to ‘solve’ them at an EU level is, arguably, no more appropriate than at a national level. If there was a problem that affected EU citizens; that could be solved by EU action alone: that might work (EU sceptics would also point out that this could be solved via multi-lateral talks rather than, necessarily, the EU). But I’m struggling to think of causes that fulfil the criteria.
It is about time that somebody mentions India as an example how an extremely diverse (sub) continent can function as a single federal state.
Really great post. This is the kind of stuff that whets the appetite.
I dont see how we can ever have a president like america or russia. Russia may have X amount of official languages but Russian is overwhelmingly dominant. English in America. Even Hindi and related languages along with English are the majority in India.
What would we say for Europe?
Identities do indeed arise mainly from “us versus them”, some protagonist rousing the natives for his own benefit no doubt. Language is the biggest factor in identity. We are the multicultured, multi lingual, mosaic of a house of cards/ piece of oregami. A tower of babel. Extremely delicate with each playing its part. Like a balanced eco-system. If one rises above the other to such an extent, it will cause havoc and bring the tower down.
Bring Polish in as a working language with English, German, French then eventually Turkish? The only way to keep the Tower standin as it rises is for a stronger wider deeper foundation ie legitimacy, civic connection.
Imagine your ultimate political leader with the power to send you to war didnt speak English or know where your city is? Imagine being an ethic russian in estonia and your EU president bombed moscow? (to be very ridiculously extreme!)
Why do you want a “European” identity ? If this sort of idea was espoused by Le Pen,the National Front or even the Great Dictator it would rightfully be seen as the racist nonsense it is.
Europeans have formed a superstate. It`s the United States of America.It seems despised by a lot of th EUrophile crowd today, is it because it has moved on to be a good multiracial nation thats even led by a non European?
Erm… I think, Robin, that you’ve once again deliberately missed the point (and you’ve been engaging so constructively over the last couple of weeks as well). I’m saying that there ISN’T a European identity, and that to create one would be both very difficult indeed and take a very long time – another reason for thinking that a European superstate is highly unlikely. The reason a European identity might be necessary, I am suggesting, is that without some kind of broader sense of shared identity a large polity will not hold together – a European identity is therefore a prerequisite for an EU superstate, and the lack of any sign of a European identity developing shows that the superstate is still a long way off.
To imply that I am a racist is laughable nonsense that you’ve tried before. But just to restate: The reason that it’s the *European* union is economic and geographical – the countries surrounding Europe to the south and east (beyond the continent of Europe) are not sufficiently economically developed to take part. Hell, even the suspect anti-immigration arguments being used to argue against Turkish membership are largely due to the fears of an influx of economic migrants from an economically underdeveloped new member state (similar to the Polish plumber scares of 2004) – race and religion are (thankfully) usually a minor part of the opposition to Turkish EU membership (I am fully in favour of Turkish entry – if and when they meet the economic and human rights conditions).
There is, however, precisely no reason why the EU couldn’t spread beyond the confines of Europe as time moves on – I have argued this repeatedly over the last few years (e.g.), and it is my fervent hope that this happens, expanding the Common Market to a global one (eventually). With the rapid advance of the Euro as the trading currency of preference, this is gradually becoming ever more likely an outcome. There are also EU-style organisations beginning to develop in Asia (ASEAN), South America (USAN), etc. – both of those consciously and explicitly modelled on the EU – which may, down the line, perhaps link up with the EU itself to create an intercontinental organisation. I for one see no reason why not if the economics and politics are right.
I’d give up if I was you Robin.
Nosemonkey has his own New World Order scenario all mapped out. You can’t argue with these people; what ordinary people think is of no consequence to them whatsoever.
Save your energy for the UK fight.
Shit. Rumbled.
Yes, I actually am a member of the Illuminati.
WG, have you actually read anything that I’ve written? I’m arguing *against* the existence of plans for a new world order. Not through a devious desire to obfuscate, but through sincere belief.
I don’t visit this thread for a couple of days and see what happens? You’re all still… on topic. Mostly.
What’s all this rubbish about freemasons? wg, what are you talking about? You absolutely CAN argue with “these people” – and you should. It’s a dialogue, and it’s how we formulate opinions. Many, many times I have had my opinion changed by threshing things out with people, online and offline. If I feel I’ve been proved wrong, I’ll admit it.
@Stuart – Don’t you think most of these things are probably better handled by regional organisations, the foremost being the EU (which has much stricter enforcement mechanisms), than by loose international agreements (like Kyoto). I could be convinced otherwise, of course.
@Robin – I do think that people undervalue national identities. There’s a certain intellectual bias which sees them as purely emotional, without rationality. I think this is the wrong approach. Identifying with a certain national group is a rational, entirely sensible choice.
But, on the other hand, it shouldn’t be forgotten that all (or, at least, most) modern nationalities seem to have been constructed, largely (according to a lot of the literature) by intellectuals. If you look at how nationalism spread as an ideology, it started in the cities and then followed railway and telegraph lines out into the countryside.
Given this (that all nationalism is constructed) how is it then “racist” to propose the construction of new nationalities?
@Nosemonkey – don’t forget that state sometimes comes before nation. The classic examples being Germany and Italy.
Nosemonkey and Josef Litobarski,
I dindn’t bring up the subject of the Illuminati or freemasons. I mentioned a new world order in reply to Nosemonkey’s reference to Global economy. This you have decided will go ahead without any input from the people.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/edmund_conway/blog/2009/04/08/sleepwalking_our_way_towards_a_world_currency
The problem you have, Nosemonkey, is that any reasonable argument that you have for the EU is becoming irrelevant. British workers are being layed off and replaced with EU and non-EU, migrant and immigrant workers. There have been numerous reports of strikes against this in the UK press.
Your arguments concerning trading blocs and expansion count for nothing if a tradesman or craftsman suddenly finds that he can’t feed his family.
Protectionism and nationalism are now making waves – I hope those waves sweep away all of the bureaucrats and lawmakers of the EU in its path
“This you have decided will go ahead without any input from the people. ”
But this is sort of Nosemonkey’s point. Lisbon was shot down. Is that not input from the people?
In general, though, it should be noted that more people still think the EU is a good thing rather than a bad thing:
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb70/eb70_first_en.pdf
From the latest EU barometer survey: “Support for the European Union still constitutes the majority view (53%) whilst only 15% of Europeans consider their country’s membership as a bad thing.”
“Protectionism and nationalism are now making waves – I hope those waves sweep away all of the bureaucrats and lawmakers of the EU in its path”
Are you saying protectionism and nationalism are your answer to the financial crisis? Or just that they are inevitable, and the destruction of the EU is a bonus?
Nosemonkey,
I`ve finally printed out the article and got out my book- Nosemonkey For Dummies .Looking at chapter 3- What Does He Mean ?- and I may have cracked it.
You dismiss the jam and trucking issues as “insane details”. Well you wouldn`t know drivers who`ve died or even hung themselves because of the “details” that stop them doing their jobs and leading the peripatic lifestyle that we want to do.But you`re not alone in that ignorance so it`s excusable.
Your article doesn`t say you dont want a European state or nation. Only that you believe one is not achievable in the near to middling future.So the first question we have to ask is;
Do you want a European state, superstate, nation or federation ?
If so why ?
Then in your comment @ 8/4/09 8.37pm it would appear you would want a European identity to protect the project from disintegrating, but you dont see that European demos happening at present.
In your second para you refer to the Polish Plumber “scares”. They may be laughingly called scares to you and others, but they are a real hardship, nay catastrophe to millons of workers and tradesmen in the UK.Do not say your thoughts out loud near a Breheny construction site for example as they will be laying off another few scores of workers in May.
Your third para mentions the trade blocs that are around the world, which have been around for a while. Whether they are modelled on the EU and this is a Good Thing is a moot point. It depends on what you gain out of it.
There was a good trading bloc in the past, still going and far better for us – the Commonwealth. Some people are also talking about a new alliance of countries that share certian characteristics called the Anglosphere. this would probably be the USA, the BRIC countries, Australia and New Zealand, Singapore. South Africa and/or other developing countries may be in it.Sadly I can see Britian not even being a member, just giving the name,culture and heritage to it while we languish in this EU project.
Josepj L,
Intellectualls like Garibaldi can help forge a state out of a split up nation. And nations can be formed by ideals- like the USA, or even by another nation, as Britian has formed new nations round the globe, Australia being the biggest.
I sense a racist aspect to this EU Must Be A Nation because it seems remarkably parrallel to what Neo Nazis and White Supremists say. Why should Latvians be any more fused into a nation containing Spaniards than Kenyans ,for example ? Why is it more importwant to build another ring road round Budapest with our money than building water supplies in Malawi ?s
Hi, Robin
Your first post was addressed to Nosemonkey, but I’d like to comment about one of your points in that post, as I was part of the jam and trucking discussions:
“You dismiss the jam and trucking issues as “insane details”. Well you wouldn`t know drivers who`ve died or even hung themselves because of the “details” that stop them doing their jobs and leading the peripatic lifestyle that we want to do.But you`re not alone in that ignorance so it`s excusable.”
Obviously, I can’t speak for Nosemonkey. Personally: I don’t at all think the jam or trucking discussions were, in themselves, “insane details.” They would certainly be, if true, very worrying and therefore shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. I happen to disagree with you about both the jam and the trucking, but I don’t think they were stupid or insane issues to discuss.
I think Nosemonkey’s point (and certainly mine) was that they BECAME “insane details” because they were so off-topic. Broadly speaking, they may technically be related to the EU, but they are not specifically related to the topic at hand.
You may disagree with me here, and I’d be happy to speak more about trucking and jam. But if we did that we would be talking about general criticisms of the EU, rather than about the topic Nosemonkey set up for us.
On to your second post, which was addressed to me.
“I sense a racist aspect to this EU Must Be A Nation because it seems remarkably parrallel to what Neo Nazis and White Supremists say. Why should Latvians be any more fused into a nation containing Spaniards than Kenyans ,for example ? Why is it more importwant to build another ring road round Budapest with our money than building water supplies in Malawi ?s”
I might be misunderstanding you here. Do you believe that nationality is based on a shared blood? You don’t believe that a person born in Latvia can ever be Spanish? Or that a person born in Kenya can ever be British? If that is indeed what you’re saying, then isn’t that actually closer to the neo-nazi outlook? Apologies if I’ve misunderstood.
And what do you think about the idea that a person can have more than one nationality? A Latvian Spaniard, for example. Or a Kenyan Briton.
Joseph L,
Happy Easter.
The issues about the jam and trucking were showing the devil in the detail about the EU, national governments, cause and effects, laudable aims which cannot be attained and how the EU affects us even when it`s not supposed to.It also shows how Britain is unsuited to the EU.
I notice EUrophiles think a problem is sorted or things are getting better because there is an EU initiative, even though previous policies or happenings sometimes makes the “advantages” redundant.Sometimes the advantages can be totally irrelavent, a bit like someone giving you a fast jumbo jet to do your local shopping.
As regards your second point I think there are two ways of looking at nationality and belonging; the Germanic way and the British way.
The Germanic way is all about blood and thus genetics . the British way is about culture and heritage, and thus there is an ability to absorb others (if they make the effort ) and even form new nations, like New Zealand and the USA.
As to your second posting;
Individuals can be, but not great swathes of people in one area or country. As a child of an American neighbour used to say – I am 50% Polish, 50%Yugoslavian, and 100% American.Isn`t that something any lucky immigrant should aspire to ?
Joseph L,
Happy Easter.
The issues about the jam and trucking were showing the devil in the detail about the EU, national governments, cause and effects, laudable aims which cannot be attained and how the EU affects us even when it`s not supposed to.It also shows how Britain is unsuited to the EU.
I notice EUrophiles think a problem is sorted or things are getting better because there is an EU initiative, even though previous policies or happenings sometimes makes the “advantages” redundant.Sometimes the advantages can be totally irrelavent, a bit like someone giving you a fast jumbo jet to do your local shopping.
As regards your second point I think there are two ways of looking at nationality and belonging; the Germanic way and the British way.
The Germanic way is all about blood and thus genetics . the British way is about culture and heritage, and thus there is an ability to absorb others (if they make the effort ) and even form new nations, like New Zealand and the USA.
As to your second posting;
Individuals can be, but not great swathes of people in one area or country. As a child of an American neighbour used to say – I am 50% Polish, 50%Yugoslavian, and 100% American.Isn`t that something any lucky immigrant should aspire to ?
Robin,
Cheers, and happy Easter to you as well.
On to your post: do you think there’s any merit to looking at nationality as blood and genetics?
“Individuals can be, but not great swathes of people in one area or country. As a child of an American neighbour used to say – I am 50% Polish, 50%Yugoslavian, and 100% American.Isn`t that something any lucky immigrant should aspire to ?”
But aren’t great swathes of people made up of individuals?
I’m afraid that I don’t have time to really join in, but @ Robin:
Did you suggest that the BRIC countries are culturally similar to Britain/the anglosphere, and if so, why exactly is this so if Europe is so culturally different?
Josef L,
To your first point; Not really as this doesn`t allow integration of other people + you cant make a country like the USA.
About great swathes of people etc;
A person ,say a Pole, can settle in a village and be the village`s Polish Man. His descendants should become British. If great numbers of Poles settled in the village it becomes a different matter and resentment will grow.
They are still all individuals, but the first fellow has more individuality to the community.
Eurocentric,
I think India will become more Anglicised in thinking as it progresses, and the others may do so too.Their economies will be more like ours (was).Their legal systems may become more like ours as well.
Europe does not have one culture, but a lot of the countries do not share our values.
It depends if things really take off with India and the others, and other parts of the world stagnate. We would be like Greece to Rome, or Rome to Charlemagnes empire. Hardly existent, but giving a lot of the culture, heritage and basis of their new way in the world.
Robin,
“A person ,say a Pole, can settle in a village and be the village`s Polish Man. His descendants should become British. If great numbers of Poles settled in the village it becomes a different matter and resentment will grow.
They are still all individuals, but the first fellow has more individuality to the community.”
But you seem to be talking about immigration! I’m talking about people adopting nationalities without immigration. Why would resentment grow if people across Europe started identifying themselves as European? You even seemed to support the idea in your earlier post:
“As a child of an American neighbour used to say – I am 50% Polish, 50%Yugoslavian, and 100% American”
A person can hold more than one nationality! I can be English, and at the same time European. (And, as an aside, Yugoslavian is a perfect example of a highly constructed identity).
But I’m still not seeing how supporting a European nationality could possibly be racist.
Josef Litobarski,
I am British. I am European. I am not a EU citizen. Go and find some other gullible suckers to sign up to your imperial corporatist club.
Josef L,
Immigration would come into this debate as it`s so closely linked (for example, A pole is an immigrant into the UK unless there was no UK but a EUropean superstate).
I suppose some people could adopt nationalities without immigration, as has happened mainly in Africa , where a nation state has been superimposed over tribes. Yugoslavia is a good example o not forming a new state. They seemed miserable until it disintergrated.(War time excepted).
You are Enlish, that is your nationilty. You are European but that is not your nationality, as WG also shows.
Why should you want a EUropean superstate ? Why tie in with European nations just because Calais starts 21 miles from Dover ? Is it because its nearer, or is it because ,like white supremists and neo Nazis, you identify yourself with Europeans ?
BTW, you say you disagree about the Trucking aspect of our discussions. What do you disagree with – that British trucks do pay abroad and foreign ones dont pay here ? that our civil service is unpatriotic, indolent etc ?
Hi, wg
I’m honestly not trying to get you to sign up to anything. I’m trying to listen to what you’re saying and to take your point of view into account. It would be easier to listen to you, of course, if you didn’t accuse me of looking for “gullible suckers to sign up to [my] imperial corporatist club” or attempt to sabotage discussions I’m having by trying convince the person I’m talking with that “what ordinary people think is of no consequence to [these people] whatsoever.”
If I offended you with my comment about the freemasons, then I’m sorry about that. By “New World Order,” I thought you were talking about the conspiracy theory. Re-reading what you wrote, I see you were more likely talking about the idealist/Wilsonian approach. I wrote my post without thinking, and I’m sorry. (Unless, of course, you actually were talking about the conspiracy theory!)
I can see you really don’t like the EU. I, however, am not the EU. I am just another person, like you (also British, also European) trying to understand Europe and the EU. I completely respect the fact that you will never consider yourself an EU citizen. Rather than forcing you to sign up to an “imperial corporatist club,” I’m more interested in knowing what your thoughts are about nationalism and Europe. Is a European nationality possible (even outside of an EU context?)
Robin,
If we jetison the idea of nationality as being based on race or genetics, then how is it racist to propose a new nationality? It is surely only a white supremacist idea if “European” means “white” – but why should that be the case?
P.S. I’ve written about trucking on my own site: citizen-europe.eu
@ Robin
You may be right about India. Perhaps you could define the features of anglicisation?
And what about Brazil, Russia and China? Whatever the differences Britain (how far should it be Britain rather than England when we’re talking about European cultural links?) has with the EU-26, surely it has more in common with them than these 3 countries. Or am I missing something about English/British culture? What are the main points of British culture which make it perhaps closer to these countries than to the EU-26?
Josef L,
It`s not racist to propose a new nationality. It would be racist to propose it on the basis of race or a euphemism for race.
So if EUrophiles are advocating a new nation called Europe because they think all Europeans are basically the same, and Africans or Asians are not like them, then there is a tinge of racsm at least there.
If they are basing it purely on the fact it`s nearer (but to who ?) then I`m afraid it shows lack of imagination.
PS you haven`t told us what you disagree about the civilservants and haulage /
Eurocentric,
It`s rather hard to define about the Angliciastion but humour is one.
I think that its possible about Brazil Russia and China if this Anlosphere notion takes off and affects those countries.
I dont think our culture is closer to those countries than say, The Netherlands or Germany, but I cant see Romania or Greece closer to us than Brazil just because it is in Europe.
One aspect to take into acount is the class structure and similarities between nations.
I often think about being in a hotel in say, central China, and there were a mix of nationalities there. Who would you end up drinking with; the New Zealander, the Black American, the Romanian, the Russian mafia linked man, the Nigerian, the Peruvian Indian ,the Norwegian, the Greek,the Thai,the Indian- given that a common language was used (no doubt English) and they were all of good intelligence but has those national traits.
Josef L,
I tried to leave a comment on your blog but was unable to. it asked for word verification, but gave no word to verify.
Hi, Robin
Thanks for pointing that out – I’ve turned off word verification on my blog now (prepare for a deluge of spam). Please try again: I’d be interested in hearing what you have to say.
I’m (slowly) writing a response to your post here as well.
Joe
This seems to be getting wildly off topic again. Just one question, Robin: if everyone in your bar scenario is speaking English, then why should any of us gravitate to one rather than another based on nationality? If I understand you correctly, you’ve just removed the key argument for your Anglosphere approach (i.e. the shared language), and replaced it with assumptions of national stereotypes.
Or have I missed something?
@Nosemonkey – Really? We’re off-topic again? Bugger. And I tried really hard this time.
I do realise that several of us have now hijacked your topics a couple of times, and we’ve been turning things into more of a two or three person conversation instead of an open debate. I might start a post on my own blog about nationalism to draw the more off-topic threads away.
Is this the last in your “EU Superstate” series, then? Do you think you came to a conclusion? Satisfied with the argument you put across? Despite the fact that most of us ignored everything you talked about and instead bickered about jam?
@Robin,
“It`s not racist to propose a new nationality. It would be racist to propose it on the basis of race or a euphemism for race.”
Then we actually agree. A European nationalism that is not proposed on the basis of race is not racist. So we’re no longer talking about racism; instead the question is whether or not European nationalism lacks imagination.
If you agree that this is where we disagree (if you follow), then give me a couple of days and I’ll put up a post on citizen-europe.eu about European nationalism. You can respond there.
I’m still not entirely sure where this “European nationalism” idea came from. I was talking about a European *identity*, which is a different matter altogether.
A European *imperialism*, however? That I can see – the desire to export the EU model beyond its current borders with a concurrent desire to limit the possible damage that further expansion may cause to the core? Yep – sounds pretty imperialistic to me – albeit more along the the lines of 20th century US imperialism rather than the 18th/19th century European mode.
Nothing racist to the desire to impose restrictions on non-EU/non-European countries, though (well, there might be for some, but it’s not the overriding reason) – the entire thing is based primarily on a combination of economics and logistics: the practical benefits to a country as far away as New Zealand of becoming an EU member state are likely to prove minimal, as so much of the Common Market ideal is based around the quick and easy transportation of goods from country to country. Air freight costs and flight times would be prohibitive to most countries more than a couple of thousand miles from the EU’s core. And the idea of bringing such economically backwards countries like Tunisia or Turkmenistan into the EU before their economies are sufficiently improved is just as ridiculous as the US allowing similarly economically under-developed countries as the Philippines or Puerto Rico to become states.
Joe – I doubt this is the last we’ll see of this superstate series – it’s just a question of having an idea sparked when I’ve got time to write. Had quite a few over the weekend, but didn’t have a computer or pen and paper to hand most of the time.
The European nationalism tangent was entirely my own evil creation. Nationalism is something I’m starting to read up on with a view to writing my dissertation about it. This is why I’m so interested in hearing what people have to say about it. It’s not the same thing as identity, you’re absolutely right, but the two are definitely related. A person “identifies” with a nation, after all.
Actually, I’ve only just started reading the literature now, so to be honest I’m still not exactly sure how one goes about defining “nationality,” “nationalism” or “nations.”
Anyway, regardless, it’s all a bit off-topic, so I’ll keep it confined to my own blog. But write more about nationality and Europe so I can ramble away, happily on-topic!
If you’re thinking of studying national identity, then I’d recommend this, by one of my old tutors: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Parliaments-Nations-Identities-Britain-1660-1860/dp/0719062470 – currently going for the ridiculous price of 44p in the second-hand section. Especially relevant to this whole discussion of the manufacturing (and destruction) of national identities via a deliberate political process, dealing as it does with the creation of the British national identity in the 17th-19th centuries.
Have just ordered myself a copy, in fact…
Cheers!
Exactly the kind of stuff I’m looking for!
Nosemonkey,
Yes, you missed something.(For a start, I said the language would probably be English, as that,s the norm. Put German in instead if you want ).
I think you would be gravitating to whoever you feel culturally closest to, which in an Englishmans case would be the New Zealander and the American.
That would probably change if you were upper middle class, the Indian was upper middle class and all the rest were working class.
It would also change again if you had a special interest in gardening, and all the rest did not except the Nigerian.
It would probably change again if you were a merchant seaman, and the only other one was the Norwegian.
But let us presume you are all businessmen, then what ?
The Anglosphere is not based on language .
Josef L,
Will try again over at your gaffe.
Nosemonkey 2,
Why do you EUrophiles emphasise the business aspects of your project, yet whenever someone in business points out the failings of EU policy you dismiss it as an “insane deatail ” ?
It`s not the closeness to, or GDP compatability that is important to a country in international trade, but security, fairness and mutual benefits that are important.
Why do you wish for an EU imperialism ? Where is the core of the EU ? Why are countries that have so much less developed economies allowed into the EU and why are they bankrolled by others ?
Your post was talking a lot about transport and its effects but you say that other posters are well off topic when a transport subject is wriiten about.
(The reaason the transport topic – British hauliers – was mentioned a lot in the threads was because it showed just how unsuited Britain is to be in the EU ).
The Anglosphere IS based on language. The clue’s in the name.
I get what you mean now, though – I think. You’re saying that friendships are more likely if you are of a similar socio-economic/cultural background – am I right?
If so, on that, I think we can all agree. Get rid of the language barrier, and a working-class man from Boston is likely to get on better with a working-class man from Buenos Aries, Bonn, Bangalore or Benin City than he is an upper-middle-class man from Birmingham.
This is, however, kind of the point of the EU. To become a member, you have to have a similar socio-economic background – you have to be rich enough, with a healthy enough economy, and with commitments to certain social norms (largely revolving around legal and human rights commitments). To continue the class analogy, it’s basically a club for middle-class countries (albeit a club that has let in some less well-off members like Bulgaria and Romania in recent years, making some existing members unhappy at the lowering of standards).
In other words, even by your own take on these things, there really is nothing racist about it. Snobbish, perhaps – but as the EU started as (and remains at its core) an *economic* community, this is hardly surprising. Would it be good to expand the membership to other “middle-class” countries like Canada, Australia, and borderline, almost middle-class countries like India and Brazil? Yes – as long as this remains economically beneficial for all involved (and the distances involved make this unlikely). Would it be a good idea to extend membership to the poorer nations of Africa, Asia and elsewhere? Not until they can boost their economies and get their legal systems and commitments to human rights in order. Otherwise they just wouldn’t have enough in common with the other members to fit in – which is why much of the former Yugoslavia is still being kept on the sidelines (along with Turkey).
As for your assertion that Britain has more in common with India/Canada/New Zealand than other European countries – in some areas, yes. Much of the old Empire, after all, retains legal systems that Britain brought over, along with numerous other historic ties. But there are also innumerable cultural/historic links with the rest of Europe – it’s just a matter of personal preference which ones you consider more important. When it comes to economic/trading ties, however, the proximity of Europe is a major factor – Warsaw is significantly closer than Wellington, so forging close partnerships with Poland makes more sense than with New Zealand.
(And in any case, there’s nothing to say we can’t do both. True, Britain got screwed over when joining and wasn’t able to secure a particularly good deal for the Commonwealth – but it’s not as if we don’t continue to trade with Commonwealth countries, or as if we haven’t managed to negotiate better deals for the Commonwealth from within the EU.)
Christ – you’ve left more while I was typing. Hold on…
1) Why do you EUrophiles emphasise the business aspects of your project, yet whenever someone in business points out the failings of EU policy you dismiss it as an “insane deatail ” ?
Your trucking thing and the jam business *WERE* insane detail. Your trucking thing seems to be more down to UK legislation/regulation than the EU (after a long-winded series of investigations), whereas the jam thing is a critique of an entire system of bureaucratic governance of which the EU is just one example – not of the EU itself. (It also wasn’t referenced at all, and was off topic). There are many failings of EU legislation in many different areas, for sure – it’s been particularly hard on small businesses in the past, for example (though a lot of this is due to British interpretation of EU directives). But the general idea of breaking down barriers to business and trade between countries remains sound – and to do this, some amount of harmonisation and regulation is necessary.
2) It`s not the closeness to, or GDP compatability that is important to a country in international trade, but security, fairness and mutual benefits that are important.
Agreed entirely. That’s why the EU exists – to ensure the fairness of the system. Sometimes certain areas (seemingly trucking, according to you) slip through the net – but promoting the free movement of goods and people is one of the EU’s key purposes. Such an aim could not be delivered without security, fairness and mutual benefits – hence EU regulation and harmonisation of various aspects of the Common Market, to prevent businesses in country A being screwed over by businesses in country B.
3) Why do you wish for an EU imperialism ?
I never said I did.
4) Where is the core of the EU ?
I’d say it’s currently the Benelux countries, France and Germany (as always), though you could argue for the wider Eurozone being included as well. Or do you mean something else (sorry – it’s getting increasingly hard to keep track of this thread and your train of thought… It’s leaping around all over the place.)
5) Why are countries that have so much less developed economies allowed into the EU and why are they bankrolled by others ?
I assume you mean some of the newer member states here, like Romania/Bulgaria? The reason for letting them in seems largely political, as far as I can see – hoping that membership may advance their recovery from the communist days. I can’t say I particularly agree with the decision to allow some of the more recent entrants to join – but then again, the same could have been said (and was) about Britain when we joined in the early 70s, with one of the most ropey economies in Western Europe… The reason for “bankrolling” these poorer member states is to boost their economies to the advantage of all so that we can reap the rewards down the line when they are in a stronger economic position – same as with any sensible long-term investment.
As for your continued assertions that Britain is unsuited to be in the EU, you’ve yet to provide any real concrete examples of what you mean bar repeated assertions that British civil servants are somehow evil – something that would hardly change were we to leave the EU. If anything – if you’re right – the situation would get worse. You’ve yet to explain how Britain leaving the EU would improve a British lorry driver’s ability to do his job when delivering around mainland Europe.
@ Robin
I think it’s a little unfair to complain about European imperialism when looking forward to the anglicisation of India and other countries that were never part of the Empire or Commonwealth. Is anglicisation inherently more friendly and good than Europeanisation, and why?
I think it is important to look at what we mean when we talk of anglophone culture. Is it the legal system? Does that mean Scotland is left out? What do we base the supposed gulf between civil law and common law legal systems if we are to view these differences as significant? Is it language? Should that affect how we view the spread of anglophone culture – what should our value judgments be here? Is it humour (do we hold this as significant enough as a difference)?
The reason it struck me as strange that you refered to the BRIC countries is that I think that Russia and China have a lot less in common with Britain than all of the other EU-26. Brazil, Russia and China would also have very different legal traditions (as would India: considering that it’s a federation, there would be many local laws which conform to local traditions and legal cultures).
(Or by legal system/culture do you mean attitudes to regulation? In which case is it wise to attach an aspect which is so heavily influenced by whatever way the political wind is blowing to cultural definitions?)
And when talking about security, fairness and mutual benefit, surely it’s logical to look to your own neighbourhood first? And surely you have already accepted that GDP of a country is important when you draw attention to the “Polish Plumber” issue?
Sorry about all that, I know it’s a lot of questions and that’s a bit unfair. I would just like to understand what conceptual framework you’re working on.
@ Nosemonkey
Looks like a very interesting book, I might get it myself.
Nosemonkey,
The Anglosphere is not based on language. It may share a language for trade, like Russian for the Commie bloc countries.
I think the worker from Boston would probably have more in common with the upper middle class man from Birmingham than Benin.Levels of poverty and sophistacation of societies are also a factor to take into account.
The EU may be snobbish, sometimes it could be said a racist is a snob but not about money.It seems to want all Europeans in it and tries to expand thousands of miles Eastwards instead of hundreds or even tens Southwards, despite there being no advantage for the core countries, the economies of which are far different to those in the East.
We have more in common with New Zealand and the other countries, and if India takes off with her as well.The important point is we will not be throwing money at these countries to trade with them, or subsuming ourselves in a stutifying project.
Warsaw is considerably closer than Wellington but that was not an impediment to our anceators using sail ships without modern communications that can span the globe in seconds. It should be easier to trade with the other side of the world now than even 50 years ago, yet there is this backward thinking that we must trade more with the continent because it`s there, nearer.Even worse is to forge close links with countries that will cost us.
Your last para said we got screwed when joining the project. True, and what class of people were the negotiators ?
Nosemonkey,
Your post 43.
1;My trucking “thing” is an insane detail ?!?!
It`s not like we were discussing the threads of screws to hold the mudflaps of wheelarches for lift axles for 18 tonners. Its the business,jobs, way of life, anxiety, despair, fustration and even actual life of the people involved. Also the taxation of our country,fairness in the market , ability of our bureacrats democracy and power in the country.
And it hinges on us being in the EU.
You say it`s about harmonisation and trade.
So is that it. You say the EU is about something- anything, and when someone points out how this is affected on jobs, businesses etc you say its a detail ?! Not worth considering.Move along now, nothing to see here. Everythings alright. Traktor production is up in our glorious new EUrope.The Dear Leaders have made beetroot taste even better.
Nearly every day I see or read how this project badly affects us, so much it`s easily forgotten. Rarely, or could I say never, do I see any evidence that we should be in this project, depite looking for it,(which is why I came here) wanting it to be in our favour (to save the heartache of thinking we are dupes).All we get are the Glittering Generalities, the answer to all the “insane details ” that the ordinary people have to endure.
2;
The EU exists to ensure the fairness of the system ? Well its failed.
Business A in the UK is screwed by our own civil service who say, but we know different, it is at the behest of the EU. Basically, we are unsuited to be in i.
3;
Glad to hear that.
4;
Cant even remember why that was asked.
5;
I meant all the NMS and the others that are subsidised.
Still your answer shows the reason, which just proves my assertion that the project has a racist bias to it ie; European countries have to be looked after, African countries that are nearer dont.
As for your last para,
The concrete evidence is at Dover docks where you will see all foreign lorries coming in and a dearth of British ones.That is because of the circumstances explained earlier. Here is another proof;
Another excuse the senior civilservants give for us having to pay the taxes abroad –
Our corporate taxes are lower
Our social costs are lower.
So this country is reducing taxes not for the benefit of its citzens, but to pay a foreign tax. That sounds as thogh we were under occupation.
Also our social benefits are lower, again to enable us to pay a foreign tax.
Now is that something you want ?
As for the senior civil servants being evil, it`s not so much as that as they are stupid, cowardly and indolent. In fact, much as I have publicly accused them of economic sabotage, I dont think they are capable of it. Such is their incompetence, if they tried to destroy British haulage it would prosper like never before.
More details in there, or did you just want a general condemnation of the EU project, with you giving a general good praise of it, and so on.?
EUrocentric,
The Anglosphere wont be imperialistic (even though India was part of the British Empire). It will be a loose voluntary trade area of those countries that are able to join in but dont want to be shackled into something like the EU.
I dont even think that it will be an Anglophone culture, except that will probably be the language. Unfortunately Britain may not even be in it. We paseed the baton of being the leaders of our culture and heritage decades ago. The US is and will be the dominant force, unless China and India really get going.
Scotland may not be in it if England joins, because at present the political elite there are pro EU, mainly as a way of asserting independence from England (but subsuming themselves into the EU project ).
Sorry to be hazy on it. I read about it on the EUReferendum Blog and more detail was given there (some people dont like details here ).
I`ll look it up and come back.
Hello again, Robin,
I guess we’re so far off-topic now that we can pretty much discuss anything! :D
You never did answer my points, though: VED is a UK tax, not something levied by the EU.
But can I just make sure I have your argument clear, then. What would you like us to do as a country? I assume you want us to leave the EU. Should we wait until the global financial situation is improved? Or should we do it tomorrow?
What do you think will happen to the VED if we leave the UK? What will happen to British membership of the Schengen? Or the single market?
What is, in your view, the best thing that the UK could do at this point, and what will happen once we do it.
Robin, correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t all of your complaints in your comment at 4:59pm that there hasn’t been enough EU integration?
Because based on what you say, British lorry drivers would continue to be at a disadvantage if the UK was no longer a member of the EU – whereas greater EU harmonisation on long-distance haulage could remove the issue, and return them to an equal footing.
Nosemonkey,
I`ve sometimes wondered myself if we would be better off hanging all the MPs and civil servants at Westminster and be ruled directly and honestly from Brussels. But on reflection, probably not.
If we were no longer a member of the EU, apart from not being taxed to pay for the thing , the senior civil servants would not have the excuse of the EU for their maladministration.
Dont forget this very important point;
Member states are allowed to discriminate against their own citizens.
That`s not important to other people in other countries, because it`s unlikely that their bureaucrats would want to do such a thing. Being corrupt yes. But act against the interests of their own citizens No.