Very boring times, very boring summit … Guardian scrapping barrel … what’s changed?
If only that were true.
Yes, it originally came from both wings. Socialists, and obviously communists, traditionally strongly against the EU because the EU champions economic liberalism incompatible with Socialism, like @Kopstar hinted at above. On the Right Wing, old fashioned Nationalists loath it because it infringes upon sovereignty and the indisputable fact that Nationalists are in favour of State versus State competition and not cooperation. And then you have agrarian interests, usually leaning very conservative in most European countries (apart from Norway, here they are left of centre on anything but culture, where they again are conservative; but Norway is here a special case as for instance in Italy agrarian interests have tended to be entwined with proper Fascism like Liga Nord), because farmers dislike the EU and often want out of the EU because they don’t want to see foreign agrarian products flood internal markets and threaten them.
And so on.
But these were, traditionally (the wing movements and agrarians) the ones that were strongly against the EU.
This is no longer the case today, as for instance people like @Kopstar and @Rambler cannot be categorised as belonging to any sort of Right Wing, as I understand those political categories. So something has changed (just using you as friendly examples guys).
It is also true that both ethnic and political Nationalism is on the rise in the West; and has been ever since the early 2000s (slowly but surely). The idea of economic and political cooperation instead of competition seems to be on the wane, and has been for some time.
Me, I really fear Ethnic Nationalism, but I don’t really fear political Nationalism.
I am worried that ethnic Nationalism is on the rise and that it sees more and more common people nodding along at their various arguments. In Scandinavia, we have become far more Nationalist since the 2000s. I don’t really recognice my country as it was in the 90s. Our innocence is kind of gone. Hard Right Ethnic Nationalism arguments, well, 95% of Norwegians used to be strongly against that stuff; no longer the case the today. Our political parties have moved to the right, all of them.
Why ? Well, the obvious elephant in the room, whether I like it or not; is culture pressure caused by immigration from particularly non-Western countries. This has always been unpopular with a large segment of the population, but far more so today, than in the 90s. We have to remember that very many European states have traditionally (not Britain due to empire and decolonization) been ethnically very cohesive, and in Scandinavia, perhaps more so than most everywhere else in Europe. This has changed. This demographic change, and the philosophical war between Culture Essensialists and Culture Constructionists ; has caused great sociopolitical friction; and perhaps much more so than many Europeans like to admit. Partly I think this is due to “the Ostrich with head in the sand” , that these frictions have been entirely ignored and wished away by very many who simply do not like it (I certainly don’t like it, but I do notice the friction and the increased popularity of Nationalist arguments) ; but partly also because it seems both Social Democratic ideologies and indeed liberalism, is on the wane and has lost much mass appeal.
Unfortunately, even though I loath to say it, much of this is due to immigration pressure on previously ethnically cohesive states, and the fact that even though there are so many good integration stories, there is a reigning (these days it is reigning) perception that integration of foreigners from more distant cultures and with different languages and also different religions and philosophies; that it simply doesn’t work.
Truth is, many Europeans wants foreigners to assimilate, not integrate and this is a bit key I think. Our elites have been unable to persuade a vast segment of the population that integration is as good as assimilation; and there is frankly a social uprising, from the lower economic strata, against the concept of Multi Culturalism all over the West. Today, in Norway, I read on Facebook all the time, arguments on why Multi-Culturalism is awful. This was not the case in the 90s or the early 2000s, then Norwegians were positive. But as immigration has increased , demography changed, there is a sense that culture is under direct threat. This has greatly increased popularity of Nationalist tendencies and arguments. Europe is not like the US after all, Europe is made up of Nation States based on culturally cohesive “tribes”, not just an “idea” like in the US. The very basis of the Nation State seems under threat to many. This has had consequences.
This is what I see anyway. I am sure some will take a lot of issue with this. My personal outlook on the future is some what grim. I think it will become a lot worse.
Edit: What began as a comment on the origins of Euroscepticism became a rant about the general increase of Nationalism in Europe.
3 Likes
Would you please define the differences between ethnic and political nationalism?
Good read, thanks.
1 Like
It was a comment on the article (as I’m sure you’re aware) which admittedly much is true but doesn’t cover anything new. In fact you could probably go back centuries and write the same sort of stuff. We are just not advancing at the moment, I would argue we are even regressing.
I must admit that I am not following ‘the news’ much at the moment. I just can not find a good source (I just refuse to go onto social media (scared shitless that it would drive me crazy I think)).
I suppose the real thing is I think that we are perhaps in very dangerous times yet so often it’s portrayed as the same old boring. On an individual level I don’t want to wake up.
1 Like
Ethnic Nationalism is about the tribe; or “Volk” in German. This is deeply ethnocentric and romantic, usually leaning on various romantic notions in history. The essence here is Culture Essensialism, which is very important for Ethnic Nationalism. The “proper” Norwegianness, Englishness and so on. There is something essential in these cultures that never changes, the Culture Essensialist says. I stress that a Culture Essensialist may be romantic and n, hold other ideas and concepts as well, and is not necesarilly an Ethnic Nationalist though. It is important not to cast the net to wide, because there are also of course many nuances. But I must generalise or I will never finish writing.
Political Nationalism does not care about the tribe in its purer forms, it is above and beyond that, and stresses Patriotism, ideals, shared citizenship, ideas; often called Civic Nationalism. It allows for integration for instance, is typically liberal, tolerant and cares about individual rights within the nation; and not just for those within the “tribe”. In a Political Nationalism there is space for minorities and even other languages. It is far less socially cohesive, but does not exclude groups of people not belonging to the tribe.
The Scottish Nationalism is for instance Political Nationalism. Contemporary Hungarian Nationalism is Ethnic. The most obvious example of Ethnic Nationalism is of course Germany, who took it further than the rest.
3 Likes
That’s an interesting anthropological, or is it socio-political, narrative. My take on nationalism is; no matter how much you sugar-coat it, it’s a slippery slope. For me, there’s patriotism and then there’s nationalism.
I’m a patriot. I respect and cherish the diversities around us, and in return I demand that our uniqueness to be respected and accepted. I love my country, people, and culture; and I’m willing to fight to preserve its sanctity. But I will also fightback if the sanctity of another nation is violated.
1 Like
Don’t have much truck with nationalism. I put all my tribal allegiance into family, friends and football club.
5 Likes
The subject of a EU military force has recently come up in light of the Australian sub fiasco. The problem is that post Brexit there are only two countries which could drive such a policy and both are problematic. It’s going to be a big shift for Germany to embrace military expansion. The understandable antipathy to anything militaristic is so deep rooted in the psyche of the country that it will probably take a massive external threat to provoke a change.
Germany has lived under the umbrella of US and USSR protection for nearly eighty years, while moaning and protesting about it, and can’t really imagine a different reality. Even the prospect of the US being led by an unhinged megalomaniac hasn’t significantly changed the political landscape in the EU’s most important country. The election campaign is not dominated by this theme. Without Germany it won’t happen and Germany won’t move until it feels existentially threatened.
1 Like
I agree. Although I’m not sure there’s a general strong antipathy towards an EU military force as a concept in the German public - as long as it doesn’t mean doing much for it…
It’s actually amazing how little foreign and EU issues have played a role in this campaign. Not uncommon for domestic politics to be at the forefront, but I can’t remember it happening to this extent.
2 Likes
I think an ‘EU defense strategy’ is a very complex issue. However I am sure that France can be the driving force for it and Germany would be more than happy to help with the supply chain which in turn would lead Germany to become more involved and even eventually be a leading force in it.
It’s easy to see France take a lead with Italy as a major partener. The thing is France is far from being that catalyst and I think there is the blocking point.
Politically I think defense is a strange animal, it is very much a political decission that is outside of public opinion.
So for me the question and debate is over what and how France can do to get this thing off the ground?
Whatever the arguements I feel a concerted effort to military independance is essential for western europe and have done for a while (and imo I was slow to realise how silly it was to relie on the USA).
Hopefully if the EU go with a military alliance then Ireland allow us to vote on exit. This was set up as a trade alliance and is becoming more like a centralised government as time progresses.
A military alliance renders neutrality as useless. Time to go.
3 Likes
What can France do to get a European defence get off the ground?
Maybe realise that Europe is a collection of autonomous countries and that every country has its own set of views and values on “defence”.
I am pissed off with various Irish Governments engaging in PESCO and allowing USA military planes use Shannon airport, whilst pretending to observe our neutrality.
And do all of this without debate.
We dont need France or Germany organising military responses that have fuck all to do with us, not now or not ever.
4 Likes
I don’t see the problem, Ireland would not be forced to join but could benefit economically if it’s prepared to help in the supply line. What Ireland does is Irelands problem. It could involve countries outside the EU, like Norway, and not involve countries inside the EU like ireland which declares some sort of neutrality.
What is necessary is some sort of concerted effort to create something viable.
No, it is totally unnecessary and amongst the worse ideas to rise in the EU. The notion of a central government body running a military alliance is not so far away as people think.
The UK leaving the EU should really have made other countries ask questions about the validity of the union, like why it is no longer simply a trade agreement for instance.
In the future, when some of the super powers invades a middle eastern country, the role of the pan Europe army will not be about defence.
This should worry everyone and member states should be accountable now for decisions into the future.
1 Like
So your for Ireland leaving the EU?
Your objections go deeper and don’t reflect what is necessary for western Europe.
Wishing to see the break up of the EU is a completely different strategy.
For me a Pan European strategic defense strategy is more about responsibilising the countries involved into reacting to what the world is now throwing at us as I see it. It’s one thing to say your allies another to act on it.
My rationale for Ireland leaving the EU has nothing to do with my argument against a pan European “defence” strategy.
What or who are we defending against? And how would instituting a military alliance help defend against this?
2 Likes
Then why bring it up confusing the issue?
Surely it’s about defending our interests. creating a viable balance between Hard and soft power.
Having the capacity to defend our allies so they feel safer.
Europes military strength isn’t sufficient to carry out it’s UN obligations as it is. The step after instigating a common strategy imo is about building something viable that can intervene independantly in ‘near’ situations that crop up. (You do realise what the USA supplied to Afghanistan was greater than what Spain has (and probably in much better working condition)?
Europe is effectively defenseless without the USA even with an alliance!