The European Union is, in its essence, a hopeful endeavour. From its origins as a supranational free trade agreement, it was designed to promote peace and liberty.
At first, this focused on taking away the causes of inter-nation strife that led to the nationalistic wars of the past. The earliest steps opened up access to European resources to try to prevent escalating squabbles.
Later, these efforts in Europe began to take on the outlines of a state. A state in which the rights and freedoms of the individual began to be placed higher in priority than the maintenance of a national order under traditional conservative structures.
A multi-member monetary union, based around a single currency with a central bank, was developed; free movement of individual European citizens around the countries of Europe and protections of workers rights and minimum wages followed. European justice courts interpreted these treaties, and European legislation, for the benefit of the member-states who signed treaties agreeing to comply.
These efforts have, however, provoked a reaction. For those deeply attached to the nationalistic orthodoxy, to the idea of nations ruling territories as organised states constructed around cultural traditions, the European Union presents a threat. In response to it, a deeply defensive Euroscepticism has emerged.
And yet, that perception seems to come from a differing ideological perspective, rather than from the facts.
Nationalism began as a project aimed at promoting the rule of the people over the rule of tyrannical monarchs and aristocrats. In time it embedded itself at the heart of the institutions of state, without fully dislodging the older traditions or structures, and itself became part of those elements.
In doing so it forgot the aspects of fallacy in its struggle. It forgot that Europe has many more nations than just those who rule one of the EU's member states: from the Welsh and Scottish, to Sámi and Catalan and Romany; there are many stateless nations with no less of a claim than the British, French, Spanish, Germans or Italians. And it forgot liberty of the individual.
In pursuing the freedom of the individual, the European Union has found itself at odds with the traditional structures of states in Europe. It has challenged the stranglehold on civil administration that corporate thinking has enjoyed, in which bodies of interested parties - collectives of individuals bound together by tradition or religion or identity or business, or all of them - struggled with and against one another for the institutional power to protect their interests.
Yet the European pursuit of individual rights need not be seen as the attempt to abolish the various and distinct national identities that some in their defensive attitudes seem to perceive it as. No more so than the pursuit of a separation of church and state represents an attempted to abolish religious belief. In both of these cases, the pursuit of liberty is not about abolishing these things, but about freeing people from being chained by them, or to them.
Ultimately, achieving individual liberty means ensuring that people have the right to choose. As long as they are bound to the structures around them, they will not have that right. And that's what puts the European project at odds with nationalism. In order to untangle individuals from their bonds, interests must be kept out of civil administration. Government must be kept free of prejudices regarding religions, nations and traditions so that individuals can be free to choose, and learn and align, and realign, themselves as they see fit.
These liberties cannot be, so long as interests such as national identity continue to have a hold on the structures that frame our lives. Both those interests and our individual selves would be better off free.
==========
References
==========
+ Robert Schuman's 'Schuman Declaration'; 9 May 1950.
No comments:
Post a Comment