Matt Zeitlin

Alex Massie and Reihan Salam both have good takes on how the supra-state integration of the European Union has actually allowed the proliferation of local ethnic groups to split off, or to consider splitting off,  from their tenuous national structures.  Jonah Goldberg, however, just sees the peaceful emergence of more coherent, homogeneous regions — like the imminent split of Belgium — as a sign of the EU’s failure, and more broadly, the failure of intra-national institutional governance arrangements:

 The catch-22 is delightful. By scaling back the job description of a nation-state to a few ceremonial duties, ethnic minorities see fewer risks and a lot more rewards in breaking away. Countries such as Slovakia get to trade on their votes in the EU and the U.N. They get their own anthems and sports teams and to teach their own language and culture. It’s like a McDonald’s franchise. Sure, you man the register and keep the bathrooms clean, but the folks at corporate HQ do the heavy lifting. That’s why the Basques, Scots and Flemings are looking to open their own franchises. The question is whether the nationalist hunger of such McNations can be satisfied by just the symbolism of autonomy…

But what I really like about the Belgian crisis is that it puts a dent in the myth that Europe represents some enlightened new model exportable to the rest of the globe. After World War II and the Holocaust, a generation of diplomats and intellectuals predicted that nationality, religion and culture would matter less in the New Europe. But wishing didn’t make it so. Obviously, nobody wants the bloody nationalism of early 20th century Europe. But it’s nonetheless gratifying that the even on the EU’s Brussels campus, life resists the blueprints of the bureaucrats.

Well, Jonah, that’s not what the intention or function of the EU is.  The EU is not about dissolving nationalism or national feeling, but sensibly moving certain supra-national market functions and policies up to a larger levelso that markets and regulatory policies can be more easily integrated and harmonized.  Thus, these states like “Britain” or “Belgium” or “Spain” which have a history of jamming together disparate ethnic, linguistic and cultural groups largely in the pursuit of some great power struggle , are less and less necessary.  Also, because of the Euro, there is less pain in splitting away from another country, the Walloons or the Flemes can maintain their Brussels dictated monetary policy and currency while having their own nation.  Goldberg, who like many American conservatives, is too busy finding whatever dishonest way to denigrate any and everything European, doesn’t seem to recognize that this increased localization and regionalism is a feature, not a bug of the new European system.  Massie sums it up well:

Godlberg seems to think that the EU has failed since it wanted to destroy national identity but that’s not really true: it wanted to change the way we think of nationality and, in the European context, it’s largely succeeded in doing so, decoupling patriotism from nationalism in ways that have been overwhelmingly healthy.

The re-emergence of Very Old Europe is, then, a tribute to the EU’s successes and, consequently, rather more than the chance for a few cheap jokes at the Belgians’ expense (not that there’s ever anything wrong with said jokes).

My previous post concerning the entire Belgian situation as well as emergent nationalisms in the EU is here.