Re: CHAT: national identity

John Fisher wrote:

> This is what you might call a live issue.  I think that the number of
> people who think of themselves as primarily Europeans, or citizens of
> the EU, and only secondarily Dutch, German, French, British etc is stil=
l
> fairly small, but growing.  The question of what the EU will become is
> not decided; whether it will become a federation, a United States, say,
> or stay much in its present state, or become something entirely new.
The comparison I've often heard is that the EU is becoming something
like what the US was before the Constitution, i.e., a confederation of
mutually cooperating independent nations bound under "a firm league
of friendship".   What kinds of powers does the EU central government
have?  The US central government under the Articles of Confederation, e.g=
.,
didn't even have the power to tax, having to rely on donations by the
member States to run its business; all laws had to pass by 2/3 vote, and
ammendments to the Articles required unanimity.  Which makes it clear
why the Constitution was later required so soon (and perhaps might
foresee problems with a European confederation? Different context, though=
).

> The UK is possibly less European in feeling than most of the other
> countries, and this is politically a very hot issue here.  What's more
> we are going through a somewhat complex process with the whole notion o=
f
> "British" at the moment, with the majority of Scottish people, for
> example, saying that they consider themselves Scottish first, and
> British second; with quite a few saying they don't feel British at all.
That's an interesting problem.  It makes me wonder, for what seems like
the millionth time, why so many European nations continue to have
unitary states, when there is a quite obvious desire on the part of
minority regions in many countries (England, France, Italy, and especiall=
y
Spain) to have some sort of extended local control over their own affairs.
The US solved this problem by *assuming* power lies with the states,
and the Federal government solves only those things that the states
individually can't handle (like the military, foreign policy, etc.).  US
states even have far more local control than German L=E4nder.  The result
of this has been, since people are happy and capable of controling their
own affairs without direction from above, American states no longer exist
in the same overt union of "sovereign states" that it started out as, whi=
ch is
evidenced by the fact that the US after the Civil War, as Shelby Foote sa=
id,
became an "is", not an "are" (though German speakers are apparently
anachonistic:  for them we're a "sind", not an "ist" :) ).  The unity des=
ired by
governments acting from above has thus been achieved by doing precisely
the opposite, officially acknowledging regional differences.

This is, of course, just my American bias showing on the issue.  I'd be i=
nterested
in knowing what those favoring unitary states have to say about the matte=
r.

(Sorry if I tend to drone on about America... I'm a history buff, and it'=
s
showing through... ;-)  )