Many of the current conflicts within the EU arguably originate from the EU trying to be more than an economic entity.
It's true that the EU, and its antecedents the ECSC and the EC, has been a tremendous force for peace on the European continent but make no mistake:
It's original intent first and foremost was economic collaboration and prosperity.
The impact of international trade, however, goes way beyond mere economic considerations: If you trade with people from other countries you have to communicate and negotiate with them, which in turn helps with reducing prejudice and creating bonds between countries on a personal level.
In my opinion, this has done more for ensuring peace in Europe than lofty political goals.
The centrifugal forces that most blatantly show with Brexit but the alienation of other EU members also is a symptom of are mostly caused by EU politicians indiscriminately pushing for an ever closer political integration without considering if that's what people actually want in each and every case.
This shouldn't be a surprise though - Ever closer union has been the slogan since 1983. The EU has always been more than an economic entity, and is better for it IMO - economic union without political union is unstable and untenable in the longer term (just as one example, people in states like Greece have no effective political power over a brutal fiscal policy which impacts them deeply).
I suspect the intention was always to promote a political and cultural union via economic and fiscal union first, then gradually political union. This is why the Euro project is so misunderstood - in isolation between Nation States it is madness, if viewed as a necessary step to a federal European state it makes lots of sense.
Perhaps a federal state will always have too much concentration of power, however our short experiment with nation states over the last couple of centuries shows they are not a very good alternative IMO, and we'll hopefully find better forms of government (perhaps far more local power over tax/policy down at the county or town level with overarching federal entities for foreign policy and trade).
The nationalism we've seen resurgent across the globe, of which Brexit is a celebration, is the easy answer, but is not the answer we need, and will in my view lead us only to war.
I absolutely agree on the matter of nation states. Because they have been the reality for longer than any living human being can remember we usually consider them to be the natural order of things.
However, on a historical scale nation states are a fairly recent concept. Before the 19th century allegiances for the most part were much more local on one hand and centred around religion (rather than concepts such as nationality) on the other hand.
Nation states helped with getting rid of feudalism and gradually ushering in modern democracy. So, historically they certainly were beneficial. In my opinion, they're increasingly and continually becoming obsolete, though.
That doesn't mean, however, that a supranational entity such as the EU necessarily is the right solution to each and every problem in the future. As much as nation states served a purpose in pre-globalisation times the EU was useful in the post-war, Cold War era but it remains to be seen if or in which ways it can continue to be useful in the future.
On the matter of Brexit it'd be pertinent to ask why a disintegration movement should stop at a national level. Why not further devolve power to for example the countries the UK is made up of or eminent city 'states' such as London?
I concur in that I think some aspects are probably still best dealt with at a unified supranational level (foreign policy, currency, removing trade barriers) while a lot more should be handled at a local level.
That doesn't mean, however, that a supranational entity such as the EU necessarily is the right solution to each and every problem in the future.
Sure, perhaps a federal superstate isn't the answer - I certainly don't think it's a great answer for local gov, taxes or accountability, though given the world we live in surrounded by hostile autocracies I think having armed forces and trade at that level is advantageous, so that's why I'm for it, but further devolution of powers would be ideal in my view, if coupled with free movement of people and goods at a federal level. Given that I see no reason for Nations to exist.
Free movement of people at least within large federal states and later globally is a worthy ideal to strive towards - why should the place of your birth dictate the rights and opportunities accorded to you? Why should nation states claim the right to bestow and strip citizenship?
> why should the place of your birth dictate the rights and opportunities accorded to you? Why should nation states claim the right to bestow and strip citizenship?
These questions give rise to an ethical dilemma. On one hand you're absolutely right: The birth lottery shouldn't determine your opportunities in life. However, communities also have a legitimate right to try and ensure their continued sustainable economic welfare, which might be endangered if there are more immigrants over a period of time than that economy can reasonably handle.
This is why - again - economic development not only has to tie in with but often is a prerequisite for pursuing desirable ideals.
It's true that the EU, and its antecedents the ECSC and the EC, has been a tremendous force for peace on the European continent but make no mistake:
It's original intent first and foremost was economic collaboration and prosperity.
The impact of international trade, however, goes way beyond mere economic considerations: If you trade with people from other countries you have to communicate and negotiate with them, which in turn helps with reducing prejudice and creating bonds between countries on a personal level.
In my opinion, this has done more for ensuring peace in Europe than lofty political goals.
The centrifugal forces that most blatantly show with Brexit but the alienation of other EU members also is a symptom of are mostly caused by EU politicians indiscriminately pushing for an ever closer political integration without considering if that's what people actually want in each and every case.