Originally posted by Drakken
Originally posted by Keynes
Ah - but there is no Wallonia, Scania, or Nation of Berlin. The point is that there are many (perhaps infinite) number of potential nations or nationalisms
--> Nope, but Wallonia, Scania and Berlin do exist. There exist communautarian consciences felt by people in these civil societies. Not all nations or communities have to be sovereign states, by the way... there are over 3000 languages and 700 tribes in Africa only. If all nations had to be states, it would be hell on earth. Still, these are strong communitarian ties between individuals which can't be denied, which Europe has noy on its continental scale. In Quebec most people accept that Quebeckers are a nation, but many are quite happy to be a national province with some power levels inside a strong Canada.
And the A-H example, doesn't really support your case; that Empire proved surprisingly successful and resilient; it took the gigantic catastrophe of WWI to finally seek it.
--> You didn't read the sense of my question. I never did give an example, only a question. Study the intern history of Austria-Hungary and think about it, try to transpose the situation in a modern European federation. And it still well apart. I don't compare A-H with EU, I simply asked people to think about the difficulties for a state to live with nations which have a memory of their own sovereign state in the past...
The best description of the process of nation-building was given by Ortega y Gasset. Essentially he argues that most national historians get it backwards. The decision to create a nation comes first, only then is there a real effort to create a unified national culture. So, e.g. the creation of a unified, national French culture in the land we call France histortically came AFTER the commitment to create a French nation in 1789.
--> I never said that France has always been France. In 1429 France was only the territory held personally by the King of France as apanage, In 1300 it was even smaller, in 400 it didn't exist at all. On this I totally agree with you. See Hroch on national movements (below).
Thus the factors mentioned by Hroch rarely just happen to naturally pre-exist and give rise to a nation. They are the artificial constructs of nation builders who use persuasion, force and mythology to create an imaginary shared history for the new nation.
--> Hroch developped a theory for national movements in 3 successive phases. First, interests by an intellectual elite interested in common cultural items (language and such), then agitation by patriotic groups and, the most crucial phase of all, mass mobilization. I don't see patriotic groups demanding openly a federation, only some economical elite having interest on Europe... but not its different languages or national cultures, only its market, citizens as customers and possible profits.
The only pre-requisite for a national project is the existence of a group of people with the will and the ability to carry it out.
--> Simply false. If there are no mass mobilization the national project will stay theoric. People don't feel that Europe is their project, but an elite project. Small states do not militate because they are afraid to become puppets of France, Germany and UK. In the present, there are no mobilization of masses in EU, only acceptation and resignation of people of a confederation of European states and the continuation of sovereign states. This will change if it goes towards a sacrifice of sovereignty and national identity, and not necessarily for the better...
Many European elites already support some form of unification. As it becomes more apparent that the nation-state is no longer an effective form of organization in the contemporary world, more educated Europeans will join the cause. They will help establish European institutions and a European education.
--> Not all Europeans are well-educated and members of the elite. Many people simply don't care about Europe unless it gives them some profit and some tangible recognition. They care for their country, they care for the common market only if it is profitable (which it is). As long as states stay independant they accept EU as the confederation that it is, but nothing more.
Over time, the proponents of the European project will debunk the old national myths and substitute new pan-European ones for popular consumption (perhaps harkening back to the Carlolingian effort at unity). The formerly suppressed regional cultures will re-emerge and support the European project as a way of protecting their own identities from the predations of the nation-state.
--> Egoprotection and cognitive dissonance. You seem to be quite normative and judgemental on nation-states also. You can't negate the fact that people want to keep their national identities, and they are glad that their national identities are represented first in their own states, even if they are not satisfied with their government. This is sad that you negate it, because nation-states are not necessarily evil and tools of the devil. I live myself in a federation which is not nation-state, but an asymetrical system with at least one province feeling national and it is not a pink life. Imagine 20 former states with a memory of an recent age were their "regions" were independant. It is quite normal for existing nations to search for a state which represents themselves first. I hope the wake of your dreams won't be hurtful when it comes, as even Joskar Fischer had tempered its arguments on a federal Europe, because it caused quite a stir last year. But I can't impeach you to be utopic. Hey, it could happen. But at least I will fight my whole life to make sure it doesn't. 
Calmly debating,
Drakken
Hmm why do a Canadian decide to fight against a union situated on a different continent than his own.
Seams a bit odd to me, but maybe you have a good answer to that one.
About Canada, I have tried living there for a year and noticed a lot of things.
Most importantly the fact that the opposite sides, had very little respect for each other.
I lived in Ontario, and was amassed by the strong negative feelings many people had against Quebec(it was closely after a referendum).
That country is not a healthy one, on that I agree(even thou I liked it very much).
However Canada and the EU is NOT the same thing, the differences is many.
Most important is the fact that where Canada is an English dominated federation, the EU have no dominating nationality.
Sure Germany is large than the rest, but not large enough to make the EU a German institution.
This is important, because often the fall of multinational states starts with one group dominating the rest (like in Canada).
If the EU is ever to be successful, it should always keep that in mind.
About the oh so good national state, well I think two world wars is enough reason to bury them.
Sure to see pride in your culture and the things it have accomplished is all good, no harm done.
But when it grows to nationalism, well then it do no good and potentially lot of wrong.
Unless of course you are someone like Hitler, Napoleon or Mussolini, trying to fool the masses into following you on a national crusade of conquest.
In that case the EU would be your natural enemy, but you are not the new Hitler are you ?
Now my view on the topic at hand, yes regionalism will increase in importance.
With the EU, they simply do not need their mother country as much.
However the national states will still continue as a entity inside the EU.
Like one of you said already, we will start thinking in Europe/Nation/Region instead of just nation.
To put it in a more simple way, when EU citizen go outside Europe.
They would say I come from the EU, where I live in a state named France, in the region of Paris.
He will still cheer for the French national soccer team, and would still speak French at home, drink French wine and eat French food.
But he is also able to live anywhere in Europe, to vote for a European parliament, he will use a European currency, and get protected by a European military.
In his garden you will se two flags, one is the French another is the European.
When he looks at the first he will fell pride in his ancestors, and when he looks at the second he will fell pride in the fact that Europe is now a united continent working together towards peace, democracy, and prosperity.
A continent where he knows, that his children will grow up with a freedom and security, his ancestors from before could only dream about.
Now that is my vision, not a Europe where the national identities have been replaced by a European, but rather a Europe where the citizens have two(or three) identities.
You see, for me the EU is not only an institution, it is an idea.
The idea that we can all live in peace and equality, despite our petty differences.
