11

At the end of the day, the majority of people's lives take place in a local, perhaps regional context.

Doesn't having a national level of administration between people and the EU create an extra unnecessary layer of misunderstanding?

What are arguments against binding regions rather than states directly on the EU level? Something like the EU right now except the represented communities aren't nations, but rather the administrative regions within them? Wouldn't such a structure allow for a more direct integration of opinions on European matters at a lower level?

How I understand, is that in the end politics are largely driven by public perception. I imagine, that making politics less national and more regional would allow people (non-politicians) to better grasp the fact, that people all over Europe actually do live quite similarly and face the same day-to-day issues.

To give a few examples of issues that currently seem to be handled on national level, but could benefit from a broader European perspective:

  • Urban vs. Rural investment
  • Rich regions vs. Poor (North/South Italy, former East/West Germany)
  • Geographical proximity vs. distance (regions bordering with other countries have a higher incentive to integrate with their "foreign" neighbours than those further away)

Parties from left/center/right across Europe are probably politically closer than people from different parties within the same nation. They would prefer the international dialog with like-minded ones over the ideological gap with compatriots from other parties. We would gather all the same arguments at a bigger table with more voices and experience, and perhaps new perspective on what can be solved and what is a waste of resources. The big theatrical politics would still be the same for all in Europe (and probably more entertaining due to the larger diversity), but for those people that actually make the world a better place the tightened integration would allow for higher efficiency in directing us as a European entity.

Rafael Emshoff
  • 209
  • 1
  • 5
  • Man, I agree with you SO MUCH! Finally someone who thinks the same was as I do - nation states are useless and makes no sense whatsoever - having something like a modern equivalent of the HRE with many tiny states would be much better for democracy. – Bregalad Jul 28 '15 at 13:47
  • 1
    I'm not able to elaborate on it more extensively at the moment, but you might want to consider that a higher-level administrative force have the ability to create the feeling of unity, sync norms and improve reliablility and efficency between its constituting agents. See the history of China as an example - the first modern state in the world. – Alex Jul 28 '15 at 19:37
  • 1
    @Alex yes, and that higher-level administrative force would be the EU – Rafael Emshoff Jul 29 '15 at 07:13
  • I am not sure I understand your edit. You are arguing for some EU-wide effort to tackle some problems. That's not a new idea but it's very easy to underestimate how different EU countries still are and finding common ground is already very difficult when you need to coordinate 28 different states. How would moving functions down to a lower level ultimately help move them up to the highest level? – Relaxed Jul 30 '15 at 12:56
  • 2
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's about a hypothetical idea proposed by OP, rather than a real question – JonathanReez Aug 21 '17 at 17:42
  • An article that explains what I felt when writing this question: https://aeon.co/essays/the-end-of-a-world-of-nation-states-may-be-upon-us – Rafael Emshoff Feb 07 '18 at 09:36

2 Answers2

7

One reason is that it's an illusion, completely unrealistic and beside the point. It would not solve any of the current difficulties of European integration (which are ultimately rooted in a lack of common political space, wide differences in economic structures, institutional and legal differences…) and it would first require a complete revamping of the current structures, but for what purpose?

It's easy to talk about this in general terms but what really makes the difference between a country and a region? It's certainly not size. The largest German provinces (North-Rhine-Westphalia and Bavaria) have a larger population than all but 8 countries among the 28 EU member states. The smallest EU member state (Malta) has a smaller area than each and every German province (even Bremen!). The richest regions (Île-de-France and Lombardia) have a GDP larger than half the EU member states.

One country's sub-state provinces is another country's municipalities and some regions are larger than several countries elsewhere in Europe. In that context, in what sense do people's lives take place in a “regional” context? In the most immediate sense, it takes place in a city/metro area (but are you seriously suggesting cities should manage everything states currently manage?). Beyond that, it takes place in a broader context, an area sharing certain common political and legal institutions and that, by definition, is the state.

To the extent that the scale of current states is really a problem, changing that would first require creating some entirely new regions that would bear no relationship to current cultural, historical or political entities (a bit like the French départements during the revolution). There are no pre-existing regions ready to assume the current functions of the state and to be integrated at the European level.

The whole point of the European Union is to start with what's there and to move to something else step-by-step. If you are willing to entertain such pie-in-the-sky projects, you can also wish we already had a European federation or something but that does not explain how it could possibly function or how to get there.

And of course, it's somewhat easier to imagine breaking up federal states (although I would argue you underestimate the role of the central state is in a country like Germany and how strong the feeling of belonging to one's nation actually is) but in places like England or the Netherlands it's an even more radical project, the regional structures simply aren't there.

If, on the other hand, the problem you are trying to solve is that there are too many levels, it would probably be easier to get rid of the regions and simply keep the states. Of course, it's just as unrealistic and would not make European integration any easier but it shows why the whole discussion is completely beside the point.

At the end of the day one of the things that characterise a state in Europe is the very fact that it's still the most important level of organisation, the level at which democracy developed, legal systems are organised, economical structures are tightly integrated (including banks, taxes or the welfare state). If you break them up, you will simply have a new bunch of slightly smaller states, some of them large and influential, some of them tiny, perhaps even too small to effectively face many problems, but no less different, nationalistic or self-interested than before.

And as shown by the widely varying size of current states, there is no sweet spot, if you transfer everything the state does down to the next sub-state level, you have not created anything new and moving competencies and regulations up to the European level will remain as complicated as it is now.

Relaxed
  • 30,938
  • 2
  • 75
  • 109
  • The author never said all the "small regions" should be equal in size, population or any other measurable statistic. He just asks why were nation states incorporated into the EU instead of the traditional regions within those nation-states directly. – Bregalad Jul 29 '15 at 13:45
  • Also there is already a huge wide difference in economic structures, institutional and legal differences within EU nation states, especially Germany (former GDR vs former FRG) and Italy (rich north vs poor south), but other countries all have very different regions, even the smallest ones. – Bregalad Jul 29 '15 at 13:46
  • @Bregalad But what's a nation-state and a “traditional region”? My point is that taking the distinction for granted begs the question. All they have in common is not being a state, which means they don't have to assume any of the responsibilities of states so that you can easily fool yourself into thinking that everything would be so much better if only they could self-govern. – Relaxed Jul 29 '15 at 13:55
  • But since they don't even have the same size, why would that be better? If states are too big and too diverse, why would a 30-million strong NRW not be too big? Conversely, if France and Germany are too big, why split Ireland or Latvia? At the end of the day, you just have 50 or 100 smaller states that would not differ in any significant way from the current ones. How would that make European integration easier? – Relaxed Jul 29 '15 at 13:57
  • Incidentally, the integration of the former GDR was and still is an immense undertaking but it's not true it has widely different legal or institutional structures, the East took over those of the West wholesale, with lots of financial transfers, including in the form of a common tax and welfare system, which is precisely one of the things missing to make the euro work. That problem (lack of fiscal integration and automatic transfer) would still be unsolved if current nation-states were split in separate regions. – Relaxed Jul 29 '15 at 13:59
  • @Bregalad I added two paragraphs to clarify that. – Relaxed Jul 29 '15 at 14:10
  • @Bregalad Also, as I explained in the fifth paragraph, in many countries, there are no “traditional regions” to integrate at all. Obviously, a lot of what's left to integrate is currently organised at the state level, you can't just wish it away, you would first have to transfer it down. But if you admit there is no optimal size, what would be the point? – Relaxed Jul 29 '15 at 14:15
  • You seem to assume that “traditional” regions are the centre of everything and that nation-state are a small layer on top of them but that's just not true. That might be true of Switzerland (only to some extent) but not of most EU member states. And if you think there are too many levels, why not get rid of the regions, then? It would certainly seem easier in many ways. So again, if that's not size, what is it about “regions” that make them a good candidate to be the right level of organisation? – Relaxed Jul 29 '15 at 14:16
  • You indeed have a point that my vision is biased because I'm swiss. If I go to a different Canton, I will feel like I'm in a foreign country and I'm not at home anymore. And in some cases, regions are states, at least in Germany, Austria and Switzerland they are. In France they aren't because that country has a strong tradition of centralized power, but it wouldn't be too hard to turn regions into states as well. Some smaller countries like Lativa wouldn't have to split, only the biggest ones. Currently some EU countries have too much power, that'd be fixed with regional membership. – Bregalad Jul 29 '15 at 14:41
  • @Bregalad Even in federal countries like Germany or Austria, that's not really true to the same extent than in Switzerland. It's easy to write that you it “wouldn't be too hard” but I think you vastly underestimate the difficulties. There is no natural “traditional regions” level ready to be integrated, and that means you first need to create it, which is a huge new problem unto itself, not a solution to the problems that already exist. – Relaxed Jul 29 '15 at 14:57
  • And then we are back to the same problem: You first need a complete overhaul of the current structures and you have solved nothing, what you have at the end are still different states. And unless you are contemplating a French-revolution-style tabula rasa approach, they would still have widely varying sizes and levels of influence, which is another reason why it's important to realise how different current regions are. – Relaxed Jul 29 '15 at 14:58
  • Yeah, you get a point. I am not planing any revolution, just imagining what could be a better EU than the current mess, but it remains entirely ideological. – Bregalad Jul 29 '15 at 18:38
  • The power between the states would be more balanced (i.e. no supwerpower like France and Germany), and it would help preserve the local cultural traditions, and help economical development of regions remote from their current national capital. It would also greatly limit the stupid nationalism of some countries. – Bregalad Jul 29 '15 at 18:52
  • In my opinion this should not be limited to Europe but be universal, the concept of a "nation state" is a monstruousity and should never have been invented, it is the cause of many wars, including World War I and II and their hundreds of millions of death. Superpower countries are also terrorising other countries and should never have been invented in the 1st place. In other words, the smaller, the better. – Bregalad Jul 29 '15 at 18:54
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Relaxed Jul 30 '15 at 08:35
4

If some planner just creates artificial states, the people have to create new laws and institutions. Most of these states will be very similar to the old state they lived in (all major disagreements about how society should run had already been settled on the, now extinct, national level.) and thus alike for adjacent states.

But what problems do those newly created states now face?

  1. Firstly coming to an agreement on the EU level is even harder - now there aren't 28 countries fighting over agricultural subsidies but 1000.
  2. Secondly European federalism. What about actions that are of such a scale that the EU doesn't need to get involved: maybe repairing a street passing 3 - 5 of those independent regions. They all really want that street but sadly they suffer from hard budget constraints. And are those other states even paying their "fair" share (i.e. more than my state)? A over-compassing entity could force them to come to an agreement but surely the EU can't micromanage every single road.
  3. And what about divergence in e.g. taxes or safety regulations? I bet the accumulated road tolls alone for a larger transport will be greater than any possible profit.

The EU is too big to micro-manage all problems occurring inside it, just as my small city is too weak to do something about some of the problems it faces (global warming, organized crime, (inter)national security, ...).
There is a sweet spot, just like the Optimum currency area, somewhere in between. The current national states might not be optimal but they certainly are closer to it than going back to something as fragmented like the Holy Roman Empire (HRE).

Just as a thought exercise, compare and contrast how the Deutsche Bund (as a successor to the Rheinbund, which succeeded the aforementioned HRE) and the EU unified. (I'm sure that is more suitable of an book and this small section barely scratches the surface).

(Some of those aren't directly comparable in scope and success, but I think they show that the intentions are basically the same in both cases)

All those show that smaller states try to consolidate to increase their power.

Brythan
  • 89,627
  • 8
  • 218
  • 324
user45891
  • 1,446
  • 1
  • 11
  • 16