Not at all, but whether they are ready to give up their sovereignty is somewhat academic, as that has been what the EU has been about since before it was the EU. It was the Treaty of Rome that stipulated "ever closer union" as a goal. By definition, that meant that each state had to sacrifice its' sovereignty, presumably for the common good.
That said, your concerns are not unwarranted, and at the moment the mood in Europe is largely one of where there is a backlash against that diminution of sovereignty. See also Brexit - which, it must be added, is not inconsistent with Britain's historic foreign policy. (Pace "splendid isolation," as Lord Salisbury called it.) See also Poland and Hungary. See also the populist coalition in Italy. See also the backlash against President Macron in France. See also the "Alternative for Germany" party that is making Chancellor Merkel's life miserable.
The list is long and goes on. The EU was born of the backlash against what happened to nationalism - its turn toward an almost tribalism that led to two world wars, particularly the Second. It was also born of the rationalism of the 18th century Enlightenment. The idea that nationality, ethnicity, religion and such are mere superstitions and that man shorn of these things will live in peace and harmony with his fellows.
It also has precedent in the Roman Empire and in the dominance of the Roman Catholic Church over Europe in the Middle Ages. So it is not an entirely alien concept to Europe's experience, which may be why it tends to have more appeal among the young. It seems new but has a claim on historical memory.
However, that all said, as Burke pointed out, things like religion, ethnicity and such are not aside from the human experience, but are integral to it and to a sense of social cohesion. Take them away, and as Burke said, you reduce man to "his naked shivering nature." Hence, France, 1789, Russia, 1917, Italy, 1922, Germany, 1933, Spain, 1936-39.
For Germany, with its history of National Socialism, the idea of ceding sovereignty is less alarming. (Germans do not even sing the first verse of their own national anthem - "Germany over all" (translated from the original German) has a naughty sound to it.) The EU puts Germany in a context that is more conducive to stability and democracy.
Still, it is a misreading of history. To start, the EU has not eliminated the rival national interests that have made European history so interesting. For Germany, the EU solves what Kissinger described as its historic problem - "It is too strong for the European balance of power, yet too weak to dominate the world." For France, it is a way to harness German economic power to French national interests. For Italy, it is a way to hold the balance between France and Germany.
So it goes. On the whole, it is probably better that Europe solves those balance of power questions within the institutional ambit of the EU instead of on the battlefield. Still, it is apt - as Greece will attest - to come at the price of a country's freedom of action, with all that entails for the people of those countries.
So are Europeans ready to give up their sovereignty? It is a balancing act. Certainly, countries like Poland and Hungary that only recently escaped domination by the USSR (Russia) there is less willingness to ceded their sovereignty - as their domestic politics shows. In Germany, where nationalism took an ugly turn, there is more tolerance for it - though as domestic economic pressures grow, even there a certain resistance is building.
That all said, Merkel is coming from a particular generation and a particular country where national identity came to be marked by bloodshed and tyranny. (Also, to be fair, the EU does solve certain problems in terms of Germany's strategic interests.) So her views are not surprising.
A balance needs to be struck. Shifting the EU to an intergovernmental approach might be wise. It remains to be seen.
Most Helpful Opinions
The problem with the EU is that it is a confederation.
All confederations fail eventually - even in the USA. (Example: USA before the US Constitution, the Confederate States of America).
Here in America, we recognized the failure of confederation due to its inherent weakness. So, we embraced federalism and America has stood the test of time for 232 years since then.
If Europe could embrace federalism, it might work there.
The problem in Europe is similar to the problem in the USA though: Ethnic, racial, and religious tensions. If citizens in Europe and the USA could get over the mindset that a "real citizen" has a certain specific set of ethnic and religious traits (*), then they could move forward with the idea of what citizenship really is and could move forward towards true unity.
(*) I've read numerous articles over the years regarding the strife in France which ultimately has led to the French asking themselves: "What does it mean to be French?"
In the USA, which was founded with people from many different ethnicities, we don't have that exact problem. However, most of those founding ethnicities were white/European. So many conservatives - the kind Donald Trump appeals to, an American is someone who is Christian and, for most of those Trumpsters, white or "of European descent" - the kind of people that founded the USA.
When it comes to these questions, I ask a hypothetical question:
If there was a pandemic that killed off every person of the ethnic group that you consider to be the defining ethnic group (the "real citizens") for your nation, then does your nation continue to exist even if the remaining people who are not "real citizens" still live in the country as if nothing had changed. For instance, what if France or America no longer had white people? Would France still be France? Would America still be America? At a government level, nothing should change... and that's the way it should be.
Yes for sure, nationalism was the worst thing to ever happen to Europe, the closer they can integrate the better it will be for everyone. It can even spread human rights to areas which are currently lacking them (Poland, Hungary)
Nope. Have you not heard of how Austria Hungary, Yugoslavia, the Ottoman empire all failed...
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
30Opinion
No it's terribly dumb. There are literal millenniums of cultures in the old continent. Plethoras of different people with their habits, traditions and sub-languages. By putting all of them together you'd be getting the same thing that happens in Italy, country unified under a french regent to save England and France from the advance of Austria. As you might know, southerners and northerners often can't stand each other, and we are talking ONE country wich is about 1600Km top to bottom. Imagine doing that to a CONTINENT.
BEST IDEA EVER!!!
UNITY, FRATENITY.
ONE BLOOD ONE NATION, THE EUROPEAN NATION!!!
THE GRATES ECONOMI THAT WORLD HAD EVER FACE IT.
UNITE! UNITE! UNITE! UNITE!
ONE LANGUAGE, ONE CAPITAL, ALL BROTHERS, ALL EUROPEAN!!!
IT WILL BE THE BEST IDEA EVER AND NOTHING WILL EVER TO STOP US.
WE WILL EVEN SURPAS THE USA AND DOMINATE THE WORLD TOGEDER!!!
ROMANIA IS A PRO-COUNTRY FOR THIS PROJECT. (even if we need to accept Hungary unfortunatly)
TRAVEL FREE AND CHEAP, DEVELOPMENT IN THE POOR AREA, THE RISE OF A NEW CULTURE!!!
CAN ANYBODY IMAGINATE THE FUCKING POWER WE WILL FUCKING HAVE? OMFG WE WILL BECOME A ECONOMIC MONSTER AND MILITARY AND EDUCATIONAL ONE.
WE CAN BECOME THE FUCKING ULTIMATE CIVILIZATION THAT THE PLANET HAD EVER HAD!!!
UNITE UNITE UNITE UNITE UNITEIt needs to go through court to solve the conflict law so need time.
and seek the hidden justice. I dont expect you not commit double standard in person as American but you would seek system without conflict and your behave would be smoothly. I am not reading law philosophy but I got this too when I read it.
American system actually tend to go it but they dont admit it. dont listen to outside. They would think the same when they fall in the situation too.There are really two questions inherent to this scenario:
1. Would the countries even want to do it?
2. Is it a "good" thing? (and by what measure, what time frame, etc)
I personally do not think there would be enough ONES to begin to create a decent TWO.The EU lacks the strength in unity which would come with one nation under one banner. I feel the Euro helped but the disparate laws and regulations are causing friction. Strong nations resent the poorer, weaker ones but none are willing to give up their national identity.
yes BUT a country needs to have something to unify on or it won't last. that's not as simple as it sounds. you can't unify on an idea because ideas change over time, that includes values.
so how do we build a successful and stable country? there are only a few things to unify on. race, religion, culture language, nationality.
currently Europe has not built an identity on any of those things and seems deliberately unwilling to do soAlready is that way for many of our countries, because the EU law is above national law. Its a facistic federal state, and it would be better for us to destroy it and go back to full nationalism.
As a southern Italian - the only thing we hate more than Northern Italians arw the French - no thank you
The Romans, Napoleon, Hitler tried and failed. The most likely thing we will see is a confederation of friendly nations much as currently exists.
As of right now, practically not feasible. Given enough time, I don’t know.
Definitely not. There's far too many cultural rifts and conflicts of interests; it would pan out basically the same way as Yugoslavia in the end.
no... all the states are far too different for that to work. i would like to se the uk rejoin the union though
Considering how well that worked for Yugoslavia, I'd say "no". Hell, Chezchia and Slovakia couldn't even hack it when it was just the two of them.
I kind of wish the Ottomans territories were once again united in a single Union state. That way there are no more visas, restrictions and more opportunities will be generated.
Euro model but in Middle East and western AsiaIt's impossible. Moreover this has been tried in a smaller scale, with Yugoslavia for example. It never ends well. Even in Switzerland the country is divided by its ethnicities.
Yugoslavia + Czechoslovakia + Austria-Hungary + the Allies + the Axis
Man, what could possibly go wrong?No way, that’s too much hassle and I doubt that idea will win a majority democratically
No, should we label all trans, gay, lesbian, non binary folks under the label “ homosexual? Should all politicians be labeled criminals? National pride, country pride, manufacturing , farming pride,
Er, why is the UK shown as part of the EU on that map?
No because all the uniqueness and cultures would blend into one
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!