“What does democracy even mean when your vote can’t even in principle influence the laws of where you live? Why should any populace grant its authority to enact certain laws to a larger entity that doesn’t share its values? Etc.”
The concept of nation state is already guilty of this all. The smallest legislature is your city/town/village council, followed by county, and in some cases even a regional legislature-like body. A nation state already takes most of the legislative rights from these and dilutes your votes with millions of other citizens.
Before nation states were invented in the 19th century*, afaik most European laws were actually pretty much locally made and enforced by the feudal lord or town council of the territory. It is feels unfathomable today, but back than a lot of towns had basically the same level of sovereignty as countries do now.
*Technically it started eroding earlier with kings trying to centralize power, but in a lot of places still was mostly intact until incorporation into nation states.
Farage considers himself English and British, and values these groups over others. So he considers empowering either Europe or Scotland to be bad, because they are not England or Britain.
Europe can’t become a nation until it has a lot more self-identified nationals. The UK is actually an interesting example of the kind of empire-country that the EU could aspire to become.
Relatively few people in the UK primarily identify themselves as British. More see themselves primarily as English, Scottish and Welsh. But for most of these people, it doesn’t stop them also identifying as British. (And let us not forget the Cornish, Manx, Orcadians, Shetlanders, Jèrriais, Guernésiais, Auregnais, Sercquiais, Northerners and others who may comfortably hold a stronger local identity as well as a weaker British one.)
Similar regionalism occurs in most European countries of course, though perhaps only Belgium and Spain rival the UK in this way. (Belgium is perhaps a good example of the EU in miniature. In the last 15 years it has twice gone around two years without an elected government, yet it’s machinery of state and local governments have continued to govern.)
In the cases you raise, “decentralisation” is indistinguishable from nationalism. They are examples of people wanting to be governed as a smaller group than they are currently, and that group is a nation.
That’s an interesting historical perspective, thanks! Though my point was mostly about whether a voter in a European nation in the 20th or 21st century should vote to join, empower, or expand the EU. Whereas citizens in earlier centuries didn’t even have the option to vote against the actions of their governments.
“What does democracy even mean when your vote can’t even in principle influence the laws of where you live? Why should any populace grant its authority to enact certain laws to a larger entity that doesn’t share its values? Etc.”
The concept of nation state is already guilty of this all. The smallest legislature is your city/town/village council, followed by county, and in some cases even a regional legislature-like body. A nation state already takes most of the legislative rights from these and dilutes your votes with millions of other citizens.
Before nation states were invented in the 19th century*, afaik most European laws were actually pretty much locally made and enforced by the feudal lord or town council of the territory. It is feels unfathomable today, but back than a lot of towns had basically the same level of sovereignty as countries do now.
*Technically it started eroding earlier with kings trying to centralize power, but in a lot of places still was mostly intact until incorporation into nation states.
Also relevant to the discussion: Catalan independence, Flemish independence (Belgium), Scottish independence.
We should distinguish between appetite for decentralization and nationalism. E.g. Farage was for Brexit, but against Scottish independence.
Farage considers himself English and British, and values these groups over others. So he considers empowering either Europe or Scotland to be bad, because they are not England or Britain.
Europe can’t become a nation until it has a lot more self-identified nationals. The UK is actually an interesting example of the kind of empire-country that the EU could aspire to become.
Relatively few people in the UK primarily identify themselves as British. More see themselves primarily as English, Scottish and Welsh. But for most of these people, it doesn’t stop them also identifying as British. (And let us not forget the Cornish, Manx, Orcadians, Shetlanders, Jèrriais, Guernésiais, Auregnais, Sercquiais, Northerners and others who may comfortably hold a stronger local identity as well as a weaker British one.)
Similar regionalism occurs in most European countries of course, though perhaps only Belgium and Spain rival the UK in this way. (Belgium is perhaps a good example of the EU in miniature. In the last 15 years it has twice gone around two years without an elected government, yet it’s machinery of state and local governments have continued to govern.)
In the cases you raise, “decentralisation” is indistinguishable from nationalism. They are examples of people wanting to be governed as a smaller group than they are currently, and that group is a nation.
That’s an interesting historical perspective, thanks! Though my point was mostly about whether a voter in a European nation in the 20th or 21st century should vote to join, empower, or expand the EU. Whereas citizens in earlier centuries didn’t even have the option to vote against the actions of their governments.