Arguments in favour of the Euro and a Federal Europe III - from Scotia 28/08/00
[another Scotia list member stated]The countries of the old colonies adopting Federalism already had a civil service and a system of law that was common. Not so in Europe. The EU Countries are quite separate and although they are looking for ways to avoid the sort of wars they had last century the word Federal probably means different things in each country. As soon as the true costs begin to appear they'll drop the whole thing. There will be die-hards of course but by 2050 the experiment will have been buried - one hopes without too much bloodshed.
OK this is going somewhere after all IMO so here's a couple of more thoughts from a different perspective although I still fundamentally disagree with you. The original core of the EU is France, Germany, Benelux and Italy who formed a common market based on the coal and steel industries shortly after WWII. Their historical memory of things like WWI and WWII is different from many of the states on the outer fringes of Europe like the UK, Spain, Portugal, the Nordic countries and Greece who joined later. The public attitudes towards things like Schengen and the Euro are often very different between those two blocks as are the attitudes towards greater federal integration as rival squabbling national sovereignties are seen as being the thing that lead to millions in mass graves rather than being a fundamental pillar of liberty.
I would have thought that if the EU breaks down it will not be a complete disintegration leading to bloodshed as that is unthinkable in places like France and Germany these days after Verdun and Stalingrad. Is it not more likely that there would be the creation of a two-speed setup with the inner hard core 6 moving onwards to still greater Euro-integration while states on the outer periphary remained semi-detached like the UK and Denmark over the Euro or Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein in the EEA? I suspect that most of the outer periphary will eventually stay the course in an if you can't beat them join them sort of way as the future major EU expansion eastwards should enable reform of some of the worst aspects of European bureacracy like the Common Agricultural Policy. Staying on the outside could also be very damaging to a country's prospects of inward investment as in the case of the UK manufacturing sector currently. Time will tell though obviously.
Fundamentally though would it not be a good thing to have a Europe of open borders with a written constitution guaranteeing equality and freedom for all? The problem with a Balkanized arrangement with states based on ethnicity is that a lot of people quite simply don't neatly fit into the traditional national ideal of their particular states and people with the same general senses of national identity don't all live in 100% ethnically pure teritorially compact and neatly delineated areas. Thanks to events on Sunday I am currently getting baited by certain green and white hooped individuals over the result of a certain sporting event in Glasgow. Was my reaction when one of them was a player on a team I coach, "That wee #$%^&* #$%^&*('s no playin oan ma team again". No because as a Canadian citizen I feel that I have to move beyond that kneejerk level of response and act in a manner consistent with Canadian principles of a tolerant multicultural society based on a sense of civic based national identity which is inclusive of people from all backgrounds. Wars happen IMO when people are motivated primarily by a kneejerk ethnic sense of grievance, destiny or justice and actually do respond in that manner on a consistent basis not when a concerted effort is being made to build a civic based society that rejects that sort of ethnic identity based response.
An overarching civic sense of Europeanness based on a set of shared democratic values is surely something to strive after as a way to eliminate the root cause of the violent ethnic conflicts that have occured since ethnic nationalism emerged as a major political and social force in the 19th century. The primal fear of "the other" being in a position of authority and able to use the apparatus of the state unjustly against a minority ethnic grouping. There is nothing wrong with a positive sense of pride in ancestral identity but it always needs to be balanced with another loyalty to a higher set of moral and ethical ideals IMO. I'm not sure that balance is always there within Scottish nationalism although the problem is often most acute on the internet at least amongst nth generation North American who have watched Braveheart once too often AFAIC. I always wonder how Americans would respond if Scots started posting loads of messages to American politics internet discussion groups? Anyway, onwards to an outward looking Scotland embracing the opportunities provided by a truly federal Europe rather than towards an inward looking isolationist eurosceptic anti-NATO Scottish tartan republic then hopefully IMO. I hope John Swinney wins the SNP leadership as I think of the two candidates he leans more to the former vision of the future than the latter.