Because outside of your bubble nobody wants this. A random person from Bulgaria is going to have a very different culture from a random person from Netherlands. What do you think happens with power in such conglomerate ?
If you want to see what happens when you create a forced conglomerate of different nations (but still more similar than EU member, languages were way closer and cultures were close as well) into a super state look up Yugoslavia.
The US were a blank page, with roughly the same crowd starting with the same common goal and aspirations. Europe comes with 15centuries of nationlike structures and history. Latin and AngloSaxons have very different approaches on life and work (particularly visible in the “PIGS” recent controversy...).
As someone said, you cant make the european omelette with nations hard boiled eggs.
The mere facts that the euro bank notes has zero european symbol (because they couldnt find one) speaks for itself. So they put bridges and windows... India has Gandhi.
And in contrast, this thread's point: that attempts to unify disparate cultures via democracy and mutual agreement, celebrating differences, have difficulties and failures when constituents decide to abandon good faith.
The idea that nation states are old, and multinationalism is new is fallacious. It's only post WWII that borders, political control, and ethnic homogeneity are strongly national... Yugoslavia being the most recent example.
I would love to (interested in the topic)
First national exhibition hosted by the Vichy government during occupation: “la France europeenne”. Showing maps of future europe, where nation-states would have disappeared.
French far-right at the time was also calling England, “the enemy of europe”, for instance on a book from M. Déat, another politica leader from the 40s.
"Anglo-Saxons" are not part of the federation anymore, and stuff like "PIGS" is simply casual racism. Do Northern European countries have a casual-racism problem? Very much so. Would that stop a federation from working in the long run? I doubt it very much. Otherwise Texas and New Jersey would have parted ways a long time ago.
Also, comparing diversity is tricky - natives from Lappland have 0 in common with say Greek or Spaniards. Same would go for india's extremes, its rather impossible to say who is more different (personally I would still say Europe, since ways of life are almost the same if you look on India east, south, north, west, very similar cuisine etc... not so much in Europe).
We have proven track of how it doesn't work here in Europe, no need to spin another set of wars to re-confirm it.
Also, India sees quite a bit of domestic terrorism in its eastern parts exactly due to mindsets like yours. Not something we like to see here in Europe.
There are independence tensions within European countries (eg. Spain/Basque, UK/Scotland).
You have to be a blind idealist to think this would work. There are going to be a lot of crisis scenarios for EU in the next few decades, refugees being the looming one EU failed to reach a consensus on and botched previously (that helped radicalise parts of it like Hungary and further alienated UK). The pending post COVID inflation/economic shock could also storm the Euro zone, Greece is still devastated from the "bailouts" in the financial crisis.
You are confusing independence from nationalism. They are very different things and you can have the first without the second.
Measures were not dictated by EU, each country decided it's own policy.
Russia had vacation faster, China as well.
Von der Leyen even said so herself, and she still believes it was the right thing to do to stifle the big countries in order to maintain the EU.
What if some US state with most of the vaccine manufacturing had stopped the export of vaccine over state borders? Would that be fine by you because it's in their self interest?
No, they did not. Here's a site where you can see the share of people vaccinated against COVID-19: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
... Wait, what makes you think that? Per OurWorldInData, except for a brief period in early January, EU total doses per capita have always been ahead of Russia and China, until June, when China drew ahead (Russia is still _far_ behind). And even then, that wasn't supply-driven; if you consider EU countries with high vaccine acceptance (Ireland, Germany, Denmark etc), those are still ahead of China; China overtook the EU as a whole due to vaccine reluctance in parts of the EU.
Normal, with 27 participants all responding to different national and political interests. Try having a flatshare with 27 families and agreeing on how to paint the wall.
Eh, that's a dubious narrative. In practice, Europe made an at the time fairly reasonable-looking bet on the wrong horse; significant production problems were expected with mRNA vaccines, while no-one really expected big problems with viral vector vaccines.
As it turned out, mRNA production went amazingly smoothly (to the point that overdelivery by Pfizer/Biontec largely saved the EU programme) while viral vector production was a _disaster_. If AZ and J&J had been able to deliver what they planned, or even modestly underdeliver, the issue of contracts would not have arisen.
Same for Switzerland, I just can’t imagine they would have it better if they split to four national states.
At least in those two cases national diversity worked great.
And somehow me, a person from Denmark, has more cultural overlap with a hacker hipster from Mexico than most of my childhood classmates. And somehow I still coexist peacefully with my neighbors.
The internet and global travel are breaking down the national cultural barriers (largely induced/imposed by mass media). Meanwhile, power imbalance and widening gaps in the social fabric are increasing issues globally, even in monocultures and regardless of immigrants.
I think the points you raise are orthogonal. Except that you're most likely right that most people don't want this - because the illusion of the shared nation-culture and history has been so deeply imprinted in us by propaganda from the education system, the government, advertising, and media.
EU is made of countries and having countries merged does not mean that cultures has to be, actually hundrends of cultures and subcultures live together with other cultures in present countries, even as parts of nations, even inside cultures (subcultures).
It is a basic human need and necessity to collaborate, everybody wants and needs that!! (except those living in a lone grumpy bubble) Those not doing it are not really viable: see Yugoslavia. : )
The EU - and in fact many many countries with hudreds of years of success - is made of and founded by former arch enemies btw....
People need to think beyond these tribes and up it a level. A random person from Bulgaria is very similar to a random person from Netherlands. I welcome the day that our tribe is Earth...
This is just dismissively asserrting your opinion as if it were fact. Where are your statistics on this?
People group together with others that share certain cultural values. Ever since borders, passports and standard languages have been the norm, this has only been reinforced.
I don't feel culturally similar to many other European countries, most notable Hungary, Poland and some other countries that have been sliding towards the far right. I wouldn't want the people who voted Orban into power to outvote me, either.
Grand unification of humanity is a good ideal, one we should work towards, but it's not something that will be possible within our lifetimes. There are very practical reasons against the North American Alliance; for example, Canada has socialised healthcare, while you can't even get the suggestion off the ground in the US. Such political differences don't just disappear.
I don't want a European superstate because I disagree with most people that would live in it. My ideals would no longer be represented by my government. I think that's enough reason not to go for complete European unification. Opinions can change, so maybe some day we can all agree, but with Hungary fighting the free press and its people cheering Orban on, I can't say I expect this situation to change any time soon.
Maybe, but what "tribe" are you part of is completely fluid. Your tribe can be extremely inclusive or exclusive.
> Grand unification of humanity is a good ideal, one we should work towards, but it's not something that will be possible within our lifetimes.
And it is quite of inevitable as communication and travel becomes cheaper.
> I don't want a European superstate because I disagree with most people that would live in it. My ideals would no longer be represented by my government. I think that's enough reason not to go for complete European unification.
That is easily an argument against any form of government. No country would exist this way for good or bad. But they exists. As you said, bigger communities are a matter of time. What it would have been an impossible union 100 years ago it makes a lot of sense today.
There is a lot of friction when changing tribes. Especially if it means changing your religion, language and culture. Few people can make that jump.
I would not call this "completely fluid".
Cheap travel and social networks made it possible.
We are doing it right now on HN.
But European electorates as such (and we are talking about the EU here) do not, in the big picture, resemble this self-selected elite, and elected politicians must take that into account or risk growth of populist parties thriving on topics where the general population and the elite disagrees.
This is "appeal to nature" nonsense. Tribalism, just like every other social behavior, can be learned and unlearned.
Imagine if someone was getting tribal along odd VS even apartment number or floor number. It would be seen as ridiculous just because it's not in line with the social construct indicating what to be tribal about.
> People group together with others that share certain cultural values.
By this logic, relocating across countries should be made illegal to prevent diluting culture. This would be ultranationalism.
> I don't feel culturally similar to many other European countries
Societies are not countries and are not people. We can be feel very disconnected from some societal values and yet find similar minded individuals in it.
> Grand unification of humanity is a good ideal, one we should work towards, but it's not something that will be possible within our lifetimes.
Citation needed. Humanity has never seen the level of culture and information sharing that is happening now.
For the first time in history some 15 years old girl in Vietnam can watch at a viral meme put on social media by an equally young boy from Canada. Practically for free and with no effort.
> Such political differences don't just disappear.
History shows otherwise. Big, unexpected grass-root social changes happen. Especially under the pressure from climate collapse and so on.
By nature or not by nature — they are in fact very tribal.
But I see this as an argument for the United States of Europe. Let's give tribalism to the people in the USE. Big _cultural_ autonomy for all the regions! The government should fund all the locals' funny dances, clothes, and rituals.
Having regional culture makes the average tribalist more happy than having nation wide culture, I believe.
Re: your comment, it's not only on nation level. People have tendency to form groups and build their identity on "us vs them" basis. That's why you have rivalries between football clubs from different cities etc.
Anyway, language and culture/history is a powerful thing that people can't get over in us-vs-them thinking. There's also business in play which collides with politics a lot. For example Germany are fine doing business with Russia, while for Poland, Lithuania and other Russia-bordering countries, RU is #1 evil and existential threat.
Because when the going gets really tough that abstract "human being" from across the Continent won't care at all about you, while at the same time the person geographically closer to you and who might belong to the same nation might prove to be a better ally. Just think of the Greece crisis of 2012 when the "human beings" from The Netherlands were generally just assholes to their fellow human beings who happened to live in Athens or in Thessaloniki.
Or think of the Greece crisis of 2012 when the “human beings” from Greece were generally just assholes to their fellow human beings who happened to live in Slovenia, Munich or Denmark. Note that the Greek crisis included a transfer from poorer Slovenia to the richer Greece. Note that Greeks as a nation has a high savings - the money has been within Greece jurisdiction all along. Note that Greece has a high corruption rate.
While the first statement stands, the use of Greek crisis of 2012 signifies the authority different jurisdictions have in aiming for effective administration.
Merkel actively lobbied for the corrupt Wirecard company in front of China officials while the company had been under investigation, afaik the highest Greek official has done no such vile and corrupt things. Unfortunately what Merkel did does not get counted in various "corruption charts" for various reasons (Orientalism being just one of them).
First, money. Some parts of the EU are way richer than others, with superior welfare systems. If every EU citizen is to be truly equal, then that would mean same standards of government services and welfare everywhere, which would be costly to the richer states. Of course, alternatively we could lower standards everywhere, but that's not good for people.
Then there's cultural, economic, geolocial differences in general, higher corruption in many members states of east/south... Plenty of things to consider. Leaders in some parts of the EU really won't understand the situation in other parts, which makes any kind of centralized government problematic. Perhaps a very decentralized model could work though, but then again that's not much different from what we have now.
Also, nationalism is hardly "an ancient mentality". Healthy nationalism, a common idea and identity is something pretty much all well-functioning countries have. United States of Europe would never work without a common European identity, and controlled outer borders. Cultural differences between different parts of the world are still way too large for anything like democratic one world government to work.
In some sense, maybe... The foundations are ancient. But...
The "world order" where the globe is divided into nation states is quite new. Before that, multinational empires were the dominant mode. We tend to think of west european empires as the canonical: french, british and spanish. These empires had clear "home countries," so the dynamic was "nation ruling other nations."
Other empires were more ambiguous. EG the Austro Hungarian Empire & the Ottoman empires. They had capitals, centres of power and such. But, geographic and ethnic national boundaries were much fuzzier within these empires.
The border changes, forced migrations and ethnic cleansing that created the modern nation state world happened mostly within the last 100 years. Take Warsaw, for example. Before WW2, ethnic Poles were about 50% of the population. Jews & Germans were the next biggest groups. This was typical of european cities. After the war, Warsaw and Poland within its new borders was/is >90% Polish. Also typical. Meanwhile, countries like Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Northern Ireland & Belgium that didn't fit into the "nation state" template were pretty unstable.
The USSR's dissolution pretty much cemented a world order where nation states dominate. That's recent.
What you are advocating for is, by some definition, the establishment of an EU Empire. Maybe a democratic empire is possible, but we don't really have example to draw on.
Nationalism is a very recent affair, the idea that people and not just the nobility have nations is a 19 century concept.
Is that right? Sounds like the opposite to me. The English King, German Kaiser and Russian Tsar during WWI were cousins.
https://www.history.co.uk/articles/the-kaiser-the-tsar-and-k...
There can exist nationalist monarchies, just the thing keeping then bound is not that they are the same rulers subjects.
Not just nationalism, but tribalism.
That's why the US has such an appalling record of bias. Each new wave of immigrants (not to mention the ones that were here, to start with, and those that were dragged over, against their will) has been met with torrents of hatred, abuse, and state-sanctioned terror. In most cases, it had little to do with skin color, and everything to do with cultural differences.
When I lived in Africa, I saw tribalism writ large. It gets bad. If we think it's only in the developing world, then we simply need to look at what happened to Yugoslavia, after Tito died.
I think that tribalism is in our DNA, and it takes a real, concerted, conscious, effort to fight it. That's hard, humbling, work, and most folks aren't up for it.
Externally-imposed structure (Tito) works, but it's a temporary band-aid.
Belonging to a trading bloc doesnt make you actually care about the other group.
Also, replacing "French" nationality with "EU nationality" doesnt get rid of nationalism it just scopes it at a larger level. There exist "EU nationalists" and to be honest, I find them as annoying as any other kind of nationalist.
EU nationalism is actually stronger than local nationalism in many circles - I rarely see comments defending any nation state here (except the Swiss, cough, cough, mostly kidding) but any criticism of the EU is met with zealotry.
More pragmatically, the EU makes little sense as anything but an economic block.
The notion that Germans and Greeks are going to accept real transfer payments, common taxation, common fiscal policy and similar rights to healthcare quality is basically ... bonkers. Germany would be the first to split.
I can think of a few reasons.
- It would erase culture, a slow process already ongoing. National identity, regional culture, etc would all go. - You'd have to reconcile the differences in rules, culture and law. Take drugs; the Netherlands is liberal with soft drugs, Portugal is more liberal with hard drugs, other countries still put you in jail for having any of those. Which one will it be? Who will pick what option? - Wealth disparity. Euro-skeptics have long complained about how much money the wealthy countries pay to Europe, and how much is funneled to the poorer countries. Make it one nation and every city, every farm, every individual will instantly demand to receive and be paid the same amount. Same complexities with health care / insurance, government stipends, benefits, taxes, etc.
Just abolishing nations is infeasible. Europe as it is is slowly turning its members into a more uniformized whole, but it can't be an overnight thing. And we have made some really big steps towards erasing borders; see the Schengen accord, removing border posts and customs between member states. See the Euro, removing barriers for moving money from one country to the next. And see the UK, who decided that was not to their benefit and removed themselves from the EU again.
Abolishing nations is totally feasible, what it is replaced with is just democracy on a local to global level.
It will take time but I have high hopes it will get there.
With the borders opened, it's very similar to what you describe. It just takes lots of time and stability which Orban and friends undermines all the time. That's why we can't have nice things.
Don't underestimate the power of cultural diversity, it's not like the US where everybody speaks English and you can fit in quite easily if you move a state or two.
In all seriousness, the issue is trust. And I have no idea how we could possibly get there as a human kind.
It might take a hundred or a thousand years, but that is where I'd like to see us go. And, it seems like that is where we are going given the global nature of business. Do you think people working at FB or Google who are working with people in 15+ countries don't realize how similar we all are? And, that this entire concept of nations is largely a farce?
To your point:
But what kind of human are they? Do they share belief A? Do they use position B on Tuesdays? Do they not associate with Cs? Do they have righteous gene D?
I'd like to see a shared believe that we are all human beings who are not that different in the grand scheme of things. And that everyone is worth a base level of respect. That seems like a good place to aim for.
And... still thinking on this one... but I think that the quickest way to lose that base level of respect is if you are someone who advocates that someone else is not worthy of that base level of respect. I am blown away by how many people define themselves by who they hate/dislike/don't-understand, and somehow that becomes a rally cry for their identity. It is a weird mentality.
The conflict between being in society and an individual is a hard one. I always like to imagine a global system where you opt into a legal system / social contract of your choice. I'll take Shite law, or I'll take the American society contract, or I'll take Chinese CCP contract, or Nordic contract....
I think emphasizing differences at the expense of commonalities is a huge mistake, just as much as disregarding those differences. Diversity in unity and unity in diversity, always a difficult balancing act.
An important part is the strong resistance to migrants, which would mean a great influx of mainly Arabs with an incompatible culture and religion compared to Europe.
Look to Sweden to see how it goes when you allow too many migrants into a European country.
On the other hand there are many serious problems with Orbáns rule, e.g. trying to control the free press, not respecting the rights of LGBT.
But to many hungarians it is better to have a controlled migration than all the listed downsides.
Many people in the west saw and see the eastern Europeans just as the eastern Europeans see the "Arabs".
I'd honestly rather see my tax money spent on helping a refugee from Africa than see it funneled to corrupt Orban in Hungary.
I don't think language differences are a problem. There are a couple of nations with multiple official languages.
But if you abolish these local governments as well, then you're basically imposing central diktats on a population, correct?
How do you resolve the dichotomy?
The "no-borders" people are as out of touch with reality as Orban, though in different extremes.
Whenever we will be able to colonize landmasses like the Moon or Mars, it would be possible that these kind of artificial communities could flurish. Colonisation will most likely be done by market-driven corporations, which could allege with these communities based on donations/taxation.
What do you disagree with?
I have family living in China, and I live in Portugal. Why do you like nationalism so much and feel so threatened by the loss of your nation as an identity? Why is it not enough to just be human surrounded by other humans who are identical to you?
As far as I'm concerned I can't wait for this whole shitshow to end up on the chopping block.
My guess is you want to live in an unpolluted environment where the land/water doesn't make you sick, eat food that doesn't kill you, if you want/have kids to know they will have the chance of a good life and good education, have a government free from corruption, know that your legal system treats everyone as fair and equally as possible as a goal, have fair labor practices, and generally be treated with respect. etc...
We are all the same, the differences are amplified to a crazy amount and they shouldn't define us.
Answering this to the fullest extent may or may not get this account banned. Since I intend on keeping it, let's just say my views differ on almost all currently controversial social issues and some but not all economical ones.
>Where are you based?
Rural Hungary. Contrary what you may be thinking right now, I'm not an Orbán voter.
>My guess is you want to live in an unpolluted environment where the land/water doesn't make you sick, eat food that doesn't kill you, if you want/have kids to know they will have the chance of a good life and good education, have a government free from corruption, know that your legal system treats everyone as fair and equally as possible as a goal, have fair labor practices, and generally be treated with respect. etc...
Indeed. I just do not think the EU helped any of these issues on a level that requires greater coordination than a nation state can provide. To give you some examples, They failed to grow a spine and stand up to the US in any way. Big Tech,espionage,military and the general economic grip the US has are great examples of this.
Another structural problem I have is the endless bureaucracy that corrupts the whole machine from top to bottom. The other day I attempted to interpret a directive amendment I have read conflicting news about and I gave up halfway through because the whole thing is so verbose and unintelligble (+ riddled with basic logical problems) I just gave up. I'm not a law expert by any means(though I can interpret Hungarian law mostly fine on my own) but if a person like me can't parse the drivel they spew endlessly, how could the average citizen meaningfully engage with the process? I think we need less complexity in the chain of command not more.
Lastly, they are so damn far away. How are we supposed to drag EU bureaucrats out to the streets when they become lamppost positive? This might be a minor thing but I can't imagine this very "safe" distance between us the people and them is healthy for democracy.
I think you will find that you have a lot more in common with people globally than you think. It is a trap to focus on the differences and our mind tries to build those into huge walls when they are usually pretty small hedges.
> I'm not a law expert by any means(though I can interpret Hungarian law mostly fine on my own) but if >a person like me can't parse the drivel they spew endlessly, how could the average citizen >meaningfully engage with the process? I think we need less complexity in the chain of command not >more.
I think that gets to the guts of an ongoing discussion the world is having. Do we want direct democracy or do we want to elect people who take care of that for us as a representative democracy? I think you could make a good argument that normal citizens are better off not knowing some things. Especially since most/all issues are super complex and it would take years to learn about them. For example, your comment on EU policy toward the USA... the answer is it is complex and you can only see maybe 10% of what is happening in that regard.
>Lastly, they are so damn far away. How are we supposed to drag EU bureaucrats out to the streets when >they become lamppost positive? This might be a minor thing but I can't imagine this very "safe" >distance between us the people and them is healthy for democracy.
Vote? Bureaucrats are supposed to run the systems, your reps represent you. The entire system can always be improved, but you have plenty of neighbors and friends in local government I would imagine.
We are resilient and these current conflicts are merely the by product of growth, learning, and building a stronger community and culture.
Nationalism is the only rational mentality for long term sustainability.
A people should never be ruled by those who have no blood in the soil or by those who don't serve the needs of that people.
Nationalism is what makes great nations. You can forget about that for a while and play the game of the inevitable failure of multiculturalism, but it will always fail, you will always destroy society, and from the ashes, a cohesive, homogeneous people will reemerge to build back from the ashes of your stupidity as has always been done
In what way? It might change the cultural landscape but that happens all the time, even the most nationalistic state does not have the exact same culture it did 100 years ago. Old culture will go away to make place for a new one, or rather, culture is always evolving.
> You can forget about that for a while and play the game of the inevitable failure of multiculturalism, but it will always fail, you will always destroy society, and from the ashes, a cohesive, homogeneous people will reemerge to build back from the ashes of your stupidity as has always been done
Do you have any examples?
Globalism is one of the best things to happen to our planet. I look forward to the next 1,000 years and hopefully reaching a point where everyone realizes we have a responsibility to every other person on this planet, as well as the planet itself. And, that a base level of respect and acceptance should be granted to every person on this planet. Nationalism is an interesting step on which we climbed. But, it is an arbitrary marker to divide people and I look forward to history washing it away in xxx years.
I do not think people should be ruled, I think people should rule themselves through some form of democracy.
Are you advocating something other than democracy?
Nationalism is an ancient mentality, get rid of it and start moving into larger groups who can do more.
I keep reading about the North American Alliance in sci fi books, how long until the usa, canada and mexico combine to create a bigger economic block?