Last year there was a vibrant campaign on the referendum-question, Should Scotland be an independent country? (after more than three hundred years of Union). It earned the highest turnout (84.6%) in modern British electoral history. 44.7% voted yes.
End of story?
No: within a year the English electorate turned anti-Scottish; it punished any pact with Scottish nationalists. Meanwhile the Scots, who already have a relatively autonomous parliament, elected Scottish Nationalists to nearly all Scottish seats in the House of Commons. The nationalized contrast between English and Scottish electorates will generate increasing constitutional tensions. It is now an open question whether the United Kingdom can remain united. Those tensions will only increase in the run-up to the referendum in 2017 on membership of the UK in the EU.
Scotland is not unique. Belgium would be finished if the Dutch speaking Flemish were consistent in their nationalism and be willing to cede the Belgian capital, Brussels, where 80-90% of the population speaks French, to the French speaking Walloons. The regional elections this Sunday in Catalonia have grown into a referendum on independence. (An informal referendum last year produced a majority for independence.) It's been reported that EU Commission President Juncker has stated that if the Catalan nationalists win, such a Catalan state would not be welcome in the EU. The Dutch press reported that prime-minister Cameron and German Chancelor Merkel supported Juncker's statement. Juncker's claim is unconvincing and goes against the spirit of the European Union.
Juncker's position is not very persuasive as Prime Minister Cameron knows given that on the eve of the Scottish referendum, legal counsel to the the British government stated that there was no serious legal reason to keep an independent Scotland out of the EU. The Commission's position is also odd: the economy of relatively prosperous Catalonia is well integrated into the EU, including a lovely connection on the French high speed rail network. While it is undeniable that modern species of regional nationalism contain unsavory elements (cf. Flanders), it is likely that Catalonia will be much more liberal than - let's say - Hungary (a EU member state), and is going to create far fewer political tensions -- to mention an oft-neglected example -- than politically and physically divided (not to mention bankrupt) Cyprus.
The reaction of Juncker also contravenes the spirit of the (1957) Treaty of Rome. That treaty, signed at the founding of the predecessor of the EU, is just about the only official European text where the guiding ideals of the EU are clearly formulated. That treaty (recall), between national governments, will "lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe...affirming as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples." In addition the goal is "to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions." Whatever else may be true, the purpose of the EU never was, and should not be, the advancement of national unity of its member States. Rather, the EU should, where possible, facilitate greater local experimentation while ensuring common minimal standards.
To be sure: this post is not a plea for regional nationalism. But regional nationalism is a dynamic response to the continued moral (refugees), economic (Euro), and cultural malaise (recall) across the EU; it is an assertion of democratic self-determination. If this democratic nationalism remains pacifist in outlook, abides by common EU law, and respects the rights of minorities - and the EU has notably failed in its duty to police its Member States to guarantee such rights - it is also to be preferred (as a response to this malaise) to the violent exit of youthful jihadists and forced unity.*
* This post is a translation and adaptation of a post I published first in Dutch at BijNaderInzien.org
While I share the spirit of your text, I have a couple of qualifying comments.
1) In relation with the fact that Juncker's position is not persuasive because legally there are no reasons to oppose the entrance of a state to the EU. I think here the point is not what the law says. This is a political question, that the law says something does not mean much, especially if for the acceptance of a new member state it requires the acceptance of all current member states. I think it is a mistake to argue that because the law says something it will mean much. If Catalonia secedes from Spain, and Spain remains as a legal entity within the EU, then Catalonia is out and Spain could veto as long as it want the entrance of Catalonia. That Catalonia fulfill x requirements will not convince much Spain.
2) This connects me with your argument about Juncker's comment going against the spirit of the Treaty of Rome. Again, it seems to me that you are putting a lot of weight into, in my view, empty proclamations. This is like the UN's principles and values, and which has not done much for stopping certain wars, or even genocides. This is not so much that you are wrong about the spirit of the treaty, which you are not, rather to point out that to say that it goes against the spirit does not entail much, especially if actors are not convinced or interpret however they want.
Posted by: Alexis Galán | 09/24/2015 at 02:25 PM
1) We agree it is (also) a political question. I think there are good political reasons to allow democratic, regional nationalism within the EU. But to think that Spain could sustain a spiteful veto, if it really wanted to, an independent Catalonia overestimates its veto-power (given that it is a net debtor and has little leverage over its EU partners).
2) I am aware of the emptiness of many treaties. But for the EU Commission President to undermine the spirit of the Treaty of Rome is to undermine foolishly his own stature. These things also have consequences.
Posted by: Schliesser, Eric | 09/24/2015 at 03:02 PM