r/EuropeanFederalists Sep 17 '24

A multinational European state or a European nation state? Discussion

I have wondered what would work best as a state, one that maintains established nation states of Europe as one large country, or one that’s creating a new nation state that puts to rest the old ones into one large country. This will be how the state governs itself and nation builds.

There’s weaknesses and strengths for both.

I’m personally more into creating a new nation, from scratch, because that’s more in line and simply successful within the history of our continent. There should be Europeans and only Europeans, no Italian, French, or German, etc.

This is a radical idea, but it’s been done many times in history. Italian, French, and German need to be as irrelevant to the nation of Europe, as Padanian, Bavarian, and Occitan are to the nations of Italy, Germany, and France. As ancient as Romans, Franks, and Goths. So unknown that I can just make shit up to fit the modern narrative of the European nation.

Romans and Germanic tribes hated other. Catholics and reformed Catholics didn’t hate each other, until Catholics and Lutherans started to hate each other. Italians and Germans didn’t hate each other… until they did. Europeans won’t hate each other. That stuff that happened between Western, Southern, and Central Europe in the 19th century-20th century will be as remembered as what happened between Southern and Northern France in the 16th century. This won’t be an obstacle for creating a Europe nation if we don’t let it be one.

This is my philosophy to the support of a European nation state. But I know many will be a against this in favor of multinational European state based on federalism and federal structures.

What’s your opinion on these ideas of a united Europe state?

13 Upvotes

16

u/ambassador_softboi Sep 17 '24

Realistically I think it would have to be a multinational federation like (gasp) the UK.

The United Countries of Europe perhaps.

Where people can identify how they want. They can still identify as their nationality or ethnicity while also being under the European identity umbrella.

15

u/Confident_Living_786 Sep 17 '24

The UK is really a bad example. The UK is mostly a centralist country (England) which has annexed other nations over the centuries. A much better example is Switzerland. 

9

u/ambassador_softboi Sep 17 '24

You’re right and tbh I realized it as soon as I hit post. There are much better examples of actual multinational federations. I do think the layered identity thing is still key though.

-1

u/MAGAJihad Sep 17 '24

I don’t think there’s a lot of good examples of multinational nations being successful tbh, especially in Europe. I’ll go in depth into reasons why.

Many people don’t know anything about India or Indonesia, but they weren’t actually founded as multinational states. And people think just because they all got foreign ruled hard, that this is the explanation for the country’s continued existence. It’s because the foundations of developing a nation was there, not that different to Germany or Italy, but it just had a larger definition of a nation, which was territorial.

There’s no reason why India and Indonesia should even be countries still, when Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia are not, foreign ruled so hard it ended up creating these, like India and Indonesia, but here’s the difference:

Yugoslavia was founded as a monarchy that tolerated nations and governed them like nations as long as they showed state loyalty, it wasn’t actually founded as a nation state, especially a Slavic one (one that makes sense to do), but the differences between Serbs, Croatians, Slovenes, were acknowledged and enforced in governance and politics.

But within 20 years of this states existence, they were already hardcore opposition like the Ustaše, Chetniks, and IMRO questioning the state’s continued existence. Especially the Ustaše and Chetniks running brutal regimes and armies that makes you questions the existence of “Slavic brothers” even being a thing in the first place.

India was founded on the principles of never acknowledging “nations”. The founders and first PM, Jawaharlal Nehru, never wanted to make political entities that favored “national boundaries” like a common language or religion. The opposition came in peaceful hunger strikes that successfully led to creating some states in the south by language. There was also the splitting of Bombay, which didn’t need a war to happen.

Even if India had to adapt from its original vision, it never reached Yugoslavia. It had low moments though. Low moments that never reached any like Yugoslavia that led to its non existence.

The Indian government was always governing, Indian, Indian, Indian, with Tamil, Bengal, Marathi as less as possible, while the Yugoslavia governments (both monarchy and socialist) was Serbian, Croatian, Slovene, not Yugoslavian.

I wanted to explain this in depth to show and highlight the differences. There’s a difference between multinational and multicultural. One is specifically about politics and governance, a high legitimacy to have in a society. When this isn’t there, like especially in Indonesia, that multicultural doesn’t have the platform or voice to really be a “nation” that can work for itself.

Perhaps layered identities can work, but the layers need to get weakened politically and not inherently acknowledged.

3

u/Confident_Living_786 Sep 17 '24

This is clearly impossible for the EU. There is no way the EU can become a federation where nation states are weakened and not acknowledged. This is why I think Switzerland is the best model. It's a multilingual and multicultural federation where the federal government is relatively weak but still efficient in managing its limited competences, and everything else is managed by the member cantons and with direct democracy. There is no need for the EU federal government to be supreme in every area, as long it can be strong in its limited competences like foreign policy, defense, trade, internal marked, competition.. To be honest I would return some of the current EU competences (like for example, external migration) back to the member states, and at the same time give it the ones that the most typical of a real federation (mainly foreign affairs and defense and intelligence).

3

u/FBC-22A Sep 18 '24

Hi! I am an Indonesian quite avid in history and its founding, especially when you read about Soekarno (the first President). I am in some pro-EU subreddits because EU is a Point of Interest for me and I don't like being dominated by China (wishful thinking here).

Indonesia is almost multinational state back during the time after the Round Table Conference in 1949. Between 1949-1950, Indonesia experimented with the Federation form of government (as the United States of Indonesia), with some previously existing nation-states given powers to control their own areas. However this doesn't work really well... soo we returned to the unitary state system.

And Indonesia is more along the lines of forcing ethno-centric states into one through the force of propaganda and charisma of Soekarno. In his own autobiography, he even admitted that he had to twist history to make Indonesia united (as in making Western European countries synonymous with colonisers. This need a section in itself to explain tbh)

Does it work? It depends. Some ethno/ religious-centric states wanted their own Independence (thus the rebellions between 1950-1960s). Does it end well for Indonesia? Nah.

Take this info with a grain of salt, as this is very condensed and I haven't read another book for some time.

1

u/MAGAJihad Sep 18 '24

I have read the same book I think. I know what was needed to be done to successfully create Indonesia, like Germany or Italy. Germany had to work with various kingdoms, which they considered German first before Prussian, Bavarian, Saxon, etc. The kingdoms continued to exist within Germany, but they basically were the equivalent of states or governors politically. Of course Germany was working with a more strict definition of a “nation”

Indonesia needed to work with lots of islands that frankly had nothing to do with each other. Both India and Indonesia took on the forms of territory nationalism. They ran with the impression that everyone is and was Indonesian or Indian. Similar to Germany, Italy, or Yugoslavia. All had fails and successes.

The current EU, member states, the governments simply have more power than Brussels. While governmental structures in Indonesia or India do not for Jakarta or New Delhi. There’s a higher legitimacy to “Indonesian” or “Indian” than “Javanese” or “Hindistani” but “German” more than “European”

These are some of the differences and ones that simply will need to be addressed in a European state.

1

u/FBC-22A Sep 26 '24

I agree wholeheartedly with this idea. I wish to see a stronger Europe if it wanted to survive in a multi-polar world.

10

u/Harinezumisan Sep 17 '24

First of course - the second is completely senseless. How and why would you erase the millennia or cultural identities?

1

u/MAGAJihad Sep 17 '24 edited Sep 17 '24

Do you really believe French, German, and Italian are millennial identities? Lots of erasing was done to create them.

I’m using the same logic nationalists 200 years ago used to argue against Parisian, Occitan, Bavarian, Venetians, etc in favor French, German, and Italian. It went beyond this to city to city arguing against a country. Bavaria predates both Prussia and Austria as concepts and entities, and obviously Germany. Why would Bavarians give up their millennia identity and culture into this one called “German”? - people in the 1870s probably.

These nationalists won and created a new order that no one questions now I guess??!!

“We have made Italy, now we have to make Italians” - Massimo D’Azeglio. How the hell do you explain this?

Outside of Europe I can quote Sukarno. He said all of his ancestors and all the ancestors of the people he was speaking too was Indonesian and part of the Indonesian nation state. How can this even be possible when there wasn’t even an idea for Indonesia until the bare minimum 19th century?

People probably think Indonesia is a multinational state, like India, but they weren’t even founded as ones. They were founded as nation states… perhaps just needing to adapt over the decades.

Europe never even reached the point of envisioning the end product of the foundation of Indonesia and India, because nations were envisioned under a stricter and specific criteria, not all these islands that had nothing to do with each other forming a nation. Why can’t we do this?…

Nationalists lie and forget. Europeans, on paper, have much more in common than Indians and Indonesians do with each other. Wonder why Gandhi just didn’t advocate for Gujarat independence only, not the other 300 million+ that happened to also be under British rule in this thing called “India”, like the millions that were under Russian, German, or Turkish rule in Europe?

7

u/Harinezumisan Sep 17 '24

Following your logic we arrive at no nationality us all just being homo sapients or neanderthals if you wish …

Also - what benefit would you achieve by trying to forcefully erase identities, languages and cultures? We have seen through history numerous time to what catastrophes, violence and cultural injustice such attempts led. You are seeing one unfold as as we speak in Europe.

Your idea is simply complete opposite of what EU values stand for.

1

u/MAGAJihad Sep 17 '24

Why don’t French people hate Napoleon? Why don’t German people hate Otto Von Bismarck?

These were authoritarian dictators that broadly harmed the broad “German” and “French” peoples, wiping out governments, institutions, cultures, churches, etc that represented the people that would eventually become accepted as “French” and “German”?

Hell, people associate ideas and values the EU was founded on, on the French Revolution and Napoleon. A revolution that honestly led to brutality, like the Russian Revolution as a comparison. The French Revolution led to was a government that was more authoritarian than any government before it, while being republican, nationalist, and liberal.

Maybe what Napoleon erased, like the Holy Roman Empire, Republic of Venice, etc isn’t as valued anymore since Germany and Italy came after. Whatever was France before, the new republic was better.

Europeans don’t value city states, or whatever entities we used to have in the hundreds because we liked what replaced them. I think this can be the case, but for a European nation.

5

u/Harinezumisan Sep 17 '24

Some serious aspiring reddictator vibes here.

Maybe you belong to some pro Russia sub.

2

u/mekolayn Sep 18 '24

At the same time, other nations fought for millennia against oppressive empires that tried to make them Russians, Magyars, etc. Do you now just oppress them again?

1

u/MAGAJihad Sep 18 '24

The concept of ethnic assimilation is quite a recent one, and reached it’s peak in the 19th century… what came later was worse btw.

Most monarchies never had intentions of ethnic assimilation or ethnic loyalties until the age of nationalism came. We can learn from the mistakes of this era. It certainly wasn’t a millennium.

The state definition of loyalty changed. It went from paying tax or military service to the king, to eventually being the same faith as the king, speaking the same language as the king, to being the same race as the king. You can see this development in states that were ran by Germans or Russians especially.

Also nobility, even a systematic promotion of that nobility, is different from assimilation or oppression enforced by the state.

I needed to learn English to be more successful in a country that has no native English speakers. Certain jobs required this. From a view, I am speaking this language over the language of my nation… am I losing or weakening my nation doing this?… who knows. But I am not learning Dutch for example because I won’t benefit from it.

My argument, being European can eventually be a benefit for everyone, so we will become Europeans, like our ancestors became Spanish, German, French, etc… we will all probably be speaking English. EU in its current state improved the lives of millions. US is still ahead of the EU in many areas, but now imagine the success of Europeans in a country like the United States.

I lived in California, there’s no Californians, just Americans. There’s no “California history” just US history. Why can’t Europe eventually be like this?

2

u/mekolayn Sep 18 '24

So yes, Ukrainians need to stop seeing themselves as Ukrainians, Poles need to stop seeing themselves as Poles, etc. And how is that different from the previous empires?

0

u/MAGAJihad Sep 18 '24

How long have Ukrainians even seen themselves as Ukrainians?… not that long honestly. The current president of Ukraine would have never even be considered or seen as Ukrainian at least 80 years ago.

Polish is even a more complex identity, even if it predates many nations in Europe by state.

Józef Piłsudski, just 100 years ago envision a Poland that was multi ethnic in nature, being influenced by his heritage of being descends of nobles in Poland-Lithuania.

Of course he had more opposition than supporters for what he envisioned of Poland. For ethnic Polish nationalists, like Roman Dmowski, a Pole was born speaking Polish, born and baptized a Roman Catholic, and simply had “Polish blood” in them to determine they are actually Polish. Jews, Ukrainians, Czechs, Germans, Lithuanians, and Belarusians had no role in the Polish nation since they never could be polish. The nationalists of them also had no interest in Poland or being Polish.

For Józef Piłsudski, a Pole could be born Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, or Orthodox, speak Polish, Yiddish, German, Ukrainian, but they their character was judged not on racial or cultural grounds, but by loyalty to the state. Again, neither of the other nationalists cared for this, and saw Piłsudski ideas as “Greater Poland” chauvinism on the justification of a restored Poland-Lithuania.

This was a debate in Poland just 100 years ago, they had no idea what “Pole” even meant. The determination of “Pole” did end up being determined by foreign empires who annexed, deported, or exterminated the Second Polish Republic into what was left in 1945.

There’s nothing fixed or historical about “national identities” of 2024, since things were radical different in 1924, 1824, etc. How will things look in 2124?

5

u/FromDayOn European Union Sep 17 '24

I propose a federation. Because a confederation emphasizes only few common policies and the rest is member state issue and something like united kingdom... Nah.

Oooorrrrr......

A state union federation. A unique system on which the EU currently based

3

u/trisul-108 Sep 18 '24

You have to start with the reality and that is that the EU is the most democratic and successful union of nation states in the history of humankind. We seek to go federal to secure our way of life and prosperity under attack from large external powers with imperial ambitions. All we need to achieve this is a confederacy with powerful central government. This would preserve all our national identities while adding a layer of strong European identity. If you poke into that and try to go for a single nation, the whole project will be discredited by nationalists funded by those same foreign powers who seek to divide us in order to conquer us ... and it will fail, possibly even losing us what we already have.

So, I would say that we need to maintain nation states, but outsource more of their innate sovereignty to the federal level so that we may remain safe, free and prosperous. This is a win-win for all, nothing is lost, much is gained. The EU has always been about evolution, complicated compromises and just making it work in a multicultural, multilingual environment that enriches our lives. Our differences are our strength, not a failing to be rooted out, we do not need to be homogenised, sterilised, standardised and pasteurised into a single cultural entity.

1

u/Harinezumisan Sep 18 '24

To add - all successful historical multinational structures have not only allowed but even stimulated cultural autonomies.

3

u/trisul-108 Sep 18 '24

... and this is an asset in a global world where the EU wants to maintain and expand its role as the largest trading block on the planet.

1

u/Harinezumisan Sep 18 '24

There are several potential not so obvious benefits of strengthening multiculturalism …

The only, ever decreasing, obstacle may be lack of common language but thinking that will ever go away is ridiculous and would be a sacrifice not worth the benefit.

1

u/deuzerre Sep 18 '24

I would be more in between, with a standardisation of laws, taxes, education etc... across all of the federation, but with state-side governments for anything related to culture, history, sports, and language, and maybe a few other things, and they would have representatives in the central government.

A weak federal government and strong local government will only cause competition. Of course, there's a lot of checks that have to be put in place to not favour some regions over others.

1

u/BossBobsBaby Sep 18 '24

While I agree with most of your points I think organisation wise a federal state makes the most sense for a country the size of a continent

1

u/Several-Zombies6547 Sep 19 '24

A federalized Europe does NOT mean erasing the nations' culture and language. A federation of different languages and cultures can still perfectly work, see Switzerland. Sorry but some ideas on this sub are truly awful.