In Defence of European Federalism

I don't need to persuade anyone to acknowledge that the British approach towards European integration is, let's put it gently, cool-minded. Because of their interests in the Commonwealth, the 'special relationship' with the US and the general 'island mentality', the British governments were always ambivalent towards the European Community. British Euroscepticism peaks at its finest level when one starts to talk about the European Federation, sometimes mistakenly called The United States of Europe. It is in fact a controversial topic in all of the EU member states. In what follows I would like to argue that it might not be such a bad idea.

Let us consider the arguments the opponents of European Federalism present. The most popular one is that of the suppression of national cultures by 'the European Superstate'. This claim always makes me smile in a nasty, sarcastic way. Those who talk of 'national' cultures often forget that they have not been around for too long. Ironically, it was the creation of nation-states in the 19th century that led to the suppression of regional cultures and local traditions, as well as ethnic and religious minorities. Let us not forget, that nation-states, so fiercely defended by the conservative guardians of order and tradition, are a relatively new invention. The symbolic date for their birth can be the same as for modernity in general - 1789: the beginning of the French Revolution. Most of the 'national' cultures some people claim to defend were all created during the spring of nations and are in fact ambiguous concepts. 'National cultures' are regional cultures mixed together and topped with an official flag, anthem and national mythology.

I'm not claiming that nation-states were a negative development in human history. They played a role of paramount importance in e.g. the development of infrastructure, civil society, public services etc. However, I think it's naïve to make the assumption, that they are the final organisational stage of human societies. They should rather be treated as just another period of the constant search for the best way to organise the way people live together. How can we decide the national identity of regions such as Lorraine, tirol, Silesia, Crimea or Catalonia? It is clear that the national boundaries along those regions are artificial and harmful. I recommend an excellent book by Anne Applebaum called 'Between East and West', where she explains the meaninglessness of 'national divisions' in central and eastern Europe. In the 20th 'century of borders', boundaries were used to divide people, who had lived together for centuries. The consequences include two world wars, mass deportations of civilian populations, the Cold War, and most recently the massacre of Balkans and the Russian intervention in Georgia (2008!). The solution to ethnic, national and religious tensions which aroused by dividing people among superficial boundaries lies in the opposite: opening them up. That is precisely the aim of European Federalism. It would not be a centralized superstate. The whole point of a federation is to create a union of semi-independent regional units.

The opponents of a European Federation also claim that it would be inefficient. However, in such an entity the policy focus would shift from ambiguous 'national interests', which reflect the needs of politicians and military strategists, rather than those of the population, to regional and local needs. Wouldn't it be more efficient if the West Midlands and Wales had a chance to realize their interests independently from Number 10? I'm pretty sure Catalonia, transylvania, Scotland and Western Pomerania know much better what they need than the central governments in Madrid, Bucharest, London and Warsaw. Federalism allows the regional and local communities to have a say - it is the highest form of democracy. It is no wonder the EU is criticized so much when it makes most of its policy, affecting 500 million citizens, in a single city populated by 1 million people. In the case of high politics, I cannot see a reason why the European Federation should be less efficient than the German Federation or the US. It's all a matter of adapting federalist governance procedures on a larger scale.

One could finally argue that the European Federation is something the people of Europe do not want. I would reply by saying that they might not want it precisely for the same reason we need it so much - that the Europeans have been indoctrinated with egocentric, nationalist ideology for far too long. When Poland was voting on whether to join the EU in a national referendum, the Eurosceptics put forward an argument that once the boarders are opened, the Germans will rush in to seize the Polish land. Well, we have been in the EU for five years now and I've never seen any Germans running around with shovels and buckets full of soil. Such absurd apprehensions are nonetheless pretty popular in many European states. It is the direct consequence of the fact that people who are neighbours, and should live next to each other in harmony, were superficially divided along abstract national boundaries.

One could criticize the above opinion for being unrealistic and speculative. It does not, however, attempt to be of academic value, nor to design a new European order - it is a defense of an idea, which has wandered around this continent for centuries. The European Federation is in my view the natural next step of the historic process of societal organisation. After the concept of a strong state saw its apogee in the first half of the 20th century, we are getting closer and closer to dividing up again into more rational units. It's not that Brussels should have decision power on all of the regions of Europe, it's that all of the regions of Europe should have decision power in Brussels. It is of course a matter of decades before we arrive at such a solution. I am nonetheless confident that one day the people of Europe will realise that they know best what's good for them and request to have a greater say on how they should be governed. The sooner it happens, the better.