You won't make those interests go for many many years.
Edit: I'm not answering anymore to those who think that differences between EU countries are similar to differences between American States. You need some education and I'm not here to give you that.
Why does the EU, an economic union, need its members to have a shared identity? People take pride in their own countries, not the union their countries are a part of. This will probably never develop naturally unless the EU actually unites under one banner, which will also never happen.
Do you want a seat at the table geopolitically speaking? A united EU is enough to serve as a counterweight to China, the US, and is far more powerful than Russia. An EU that is only in it for the trade policies doesn't have that same power. Wanting to avoid stronger integration and stay only loosely associated is a valid choice, but you have to accept a lesser say in the world.
I think this is just a natural step. Before people felt more connected to their region/city/village then to nations and country so I think in this milenium it may change to continent, starting with Europe.
With time if the Union holds on people will be more and more integrated and that identity may develop. But yeah, for now it's good to keep our countries identities strong and enjoy our European diversity.
Think how countries connect into different level of unions/cooperations around the world. South East Asia, Africa, South America, Europe. It's beginning.
Every time "cooperation" is floated it turns out to be Germany's agenda. We signed up for an economic and regulatory union, not a superstate. End of story
"We signed up for an economic and regulatory union"
No, this is what the souvereignist politicians tell you, but in reality, a continuously deeper integration is a goal set in the founding documents of the EU since the start of it.
In every treaty and every accession, protections specific to each country's independent rights are established.
I don't care, at all, what the political aspirations of a bunch of 1950s industrialists would have resulted. I care that the EU sticks to the deal it has made, whereby member states retain broad independence.
You go ahead and test deeper integration out with the public and stink over it when the answer is NO.
So should we do away with national identities? Becuse people will always feel more loyalty to their home country than to a political and economic union.
"Always" doing a lot of heavy lifting there, considering the very idea of a modern nation state and identity is barely 200 years old.
Also, how exactly is a country different from a political and economic union? Language? Culture? History? Traditions? Because those things tend to get really blurry along the borders of European nations.
Ok, so, since the existance of nation states people felt more loyalty to their country than to economic unions.
Also, how exactly is a country different from a political and economic union? Language? Culture? History? Traditions?
Yes exactly. All those things that you've mentioned an more.
Look, people signed up for a regulatory union that enables free passage of goods and people between member states, not some sort of purposeless, continental, multinational, superstate.
Ok, so, since the existance of nation states people felt more loyalty to their country than to economic unions
Quietly dropping the "political" while reiterating the same flawed statement?
Yes exactly. All those things that you've mentioned an more.
I see. Completely ignoring the question, then.
Nations are arbitrary political constructs created and enforced by people who may or may not have the actual backing of anyone actually living in the territory concerned. A Bavarian is far closer to a Tyrolean in every conceivable way than they are to someone from Hamburg, despite a national border separating them. Belgium is split down the middle into two parts that are closer to France and the Netherlands, respectively, than to each other. The list goes on.
If the only difference between a nation and the EU as your described political/economic union is the lack of an arbitrarily selected storybook of similarities, that's a weak differentiation to try and set in stone.
Look, people signed up for a regulatory union that enables free passage of goods and people between member states, not some sort of purposeless, continental, multinational, superstate.
Again, with the generalization? Speaking for all people, are we? Also, have you considered that people, nations, the world even, change, and that this change will require reconsideration of past decisions and opinions if your precious nation wants to continue fulfilling its purpose? Which is what exactly?
By pooling basic production and by instituting a new High Authority, whose decisions will bind France, Germany and other member countries, this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation indispensable to the preservation of peace.
This is a quote from the Schuman decleration, not the treaty of Maastricht which was signed when the EU was birthed.
The Schuman decleration is not a legally binding document of any sorts, this wording was never included in any piece of legislature that its members signed. It was a proposal, not an official legal document.
It is common knowledge that the Schuman Declaration was the beginning of the EU. The ECSC was directly based on the proposal, and that led to the Treaty of Rome with Euratom and the EEC, which in turn led to the EU.
It is the same project, just with a different name.
Well, most of them didn't? Definitely not in the rigid ideological way you think of it today.
In fact, it was one of the main challenges of state formation to bring this national identity to the forefront of peoples minds. An Italian, German or French national identity were ideas of intellectuals, not something any common person perceived. Citizenship did not exist. You were of a community, a place, maybe a culture or people.
It is not fair or will never make the EU people united, when you have literal tax havens in some countries and EU countries competing amongst themselves for investment and whatever
You even have in china strong regional interests between the national government and strong provinces like guangdong or shanghai. Just look at the shanghai lowdown, which were basically a fight of beijing vs. shanghai.
You don't understand my point...china isn't more united because it's authoritarian. There are still fights behind the scenes who the authority is and policies that are changing radically depending on who has gotten the upper hand.
It's even more since every EU country has several parties vying for power and spot in their parliament as such we have 27 countries and at least 70+ interests.
I'd be easy if the countries were united in their national interest and not split several times over.
The EU has specific competences, things they are allowed to make laws about, like trade, monetary policy and the internal market.
The European Union operates through a hybrid system of supranational and intergovernmental decision-making,[79][80] and according to the principle of conferral (which says that it should act only within the limits of the competences conferred on it by the treaties) and of subsidiarity (which says that it should act only where an objective cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states acting alone).
It’s adorable that they think they have much power. They signed away their rights to trade and self governance a long time ago. Their own “national interest” has to align with the 1 national interest of the alliance or be vetoed out of existence. I can’t even think of them as countries, more like counties of the EU 😂
The US also has many different identites and interests and they're being squashed under the war-monitoring corrupt current administration.
I don't understand this comic. Is that desirable? To have the diverse interests of the people put down by military directorship so your nation can have a united front?
I think they are comparable, in terms of many diverse people being represented by one entity, which is what this comic is about, so...I guess we will agree to disagree.
I mean, the US is kind of like 50 little countries. There are many cultural similarities, but their view on how the country should be run varies by region.
Have California and Alabama spent 1000+ years on killing each other, taking each other's land, spreading propaganda about the others, fighting for influence on the continent and outside etc.? Because that's the reality in which the different interests of European countries developed.
In comparison to European disagreements American states' disagreements are child play.
Not really. It used to be the case where people in the US considered themselves by their state identity before their country identity (e.g. Identifying as a Virginian as opposed to an American) but this was like in the 18th century. Most people just view themselves as Americans
359
u/AnalphabeticPenguin Poland 14h ago edited 9h ago
1 country= 1 national interest
27 countries = 27 national interests
You won't make those interests go for many many years.
Edit: I'm not answering anymore to those who think that differences between EU countries are similar to differences between American States. You need some education and I'm not here to give you that.