The end of the European Union will not be on the back of
Britain’s decision to leave it, regardless of what some members of the British
political aristocracy might believe. But whether this nationalist arrogance is
baseless or substantial is irrelevant. The illustrative point remains –
nationalism will, eventually, kill the European Union.
Of course, it’s easy for a quite stereotypically British
Remainer to say such a thing – it allows me to support my country by claiming
the crumbling empire is not my country by their
continent, whilst simultaneously bashing the abhorrent nationalistic overtones
that consumed much of the Leave campaign’s media strategy (“take back control,” “Independence Day,” anybody?). However,
the seeds of the European Union’s demise are not found in the dissent of little
England, but instead within the textbooks of history.
Are we so far removed (or, perhaps, so democratically
evolved?) to forget that 100 years ago Europe was embroiled in the (then)
largest war in human history, only to then go and top that a couple of decades
later? Or, choose more recent conflicts such as the Balkans in the 1990s, the
Kosovo crisis and the return to genocide on European soil. These conflicts are
borne out of national identity and the desire for self-determination – take
back control could be applied to almost any European state at some point in
that state’s history.
To believe, as many European technocrats and Remainers do,
that the European Union is somehow a fundamental (and, by extension, permanent)
entity is dubious at best. For what’s next for Europe but some sort of
federalised state? The crisis in the Eurozone has shown the current model is
tremendously fragile, and as reaction from Britain breaking away is it so mad
as to think the European technocrats would call for closer integration between
those that remain? And is the ultimate – perhaps extreme – outcome of this not
something like the United States of Europe?
Such federalisation is unlikely because of nationalism, and
the evidence is clear to see. A prime example is the calls for independence in
Catalonia, which inevitably leads to a discussion of the Basque country. Or
consider a 2015 Scotland, or even Kosovo should political forces move
sufficiently. From the perspective of integration,
take Turkey. The core part of what remains the sick man of Europe, those in
Brussels seem to believe Turkey is sick, but certainly not European (Union,
mind you). Lastly, take Switzerland – which is not even in the European Union –
which consists of 26 federalised Cantons
which operate quite independently.
History is expressed through our geography, which is itself
expressed through colours on a map. Europe, for its size, is rather colourful.
The question of why is because nationalistic beliefs dominate Europe, and have
shaped the lay of the land (sometimes literally) when stressed. Though I think
inaccurate, it is still a justifiable inquiry to say technocracy and loss of
control in Europe stressed these tensions in Britain, resulting in Brexit.
Further stresses – perhaps brought on by further integration – may lead to more
Brexit scenarios popping up in the near future (a great example of this, in my
opinion, is found in Emmanuel Macron, who is calling for a stronger European
Union whilst his opponent in the election – Marine Le Pen – had a very
Eurosceptic message. You could argue Macron is acting on a mandate, given he
won. You could also argue Macron should be trying to convince those who didn’t
vote for him, less they bite back next time).
The reverse – more decentralisation – is almost an admission
of defeat. For those of us who want the European Union to survive, of which I
am one, we must find another cure for the beast. That cure is not immediately
forthcoming, but it should include the European Union rethinking its role
within Europe the continent. If it
continues to act as a self-actualising behemoth, it will fail to see the minute
cracks until they become caverns.
