The E.U. and Regionalism

The European Union has always been polarizing as an ideal and a work in progress, but increasingly, the institution appears to be broadly disliked by its constituents. While the rise of the E.U. was always likely to produce a Eurosceptic, nationalist backlash, it has also led to more unforeseen and still scarcely talked-about consequences. Here is one: Over the past two decades the E.U. has diluted existing nation-states' sovereignty and promoted a supra-national sense of belonging, and thus it has actually helped revive and legitimize historic ethno-regionalist causes. And this is taking place right in the heart of austere, ‘Old World’ Europe, as opposed to a collapsing Eastern Bloc in 1990. Chief among these examples are pro-European parties in Flanders and Scotland, which want independence from Belgium and the United Kingdom.

In June 2010, Belgium's most recent elections produced a surprising victory for the New Flemish Alliance, which favours the gradual but decisive break-up of the country. Of course, Belgium has always been one of the most “artificial” and divided nations of modern Europe. Created in 1830 by joining Flanders, with its distinct Flemish identity and heritage, to French-speaking Wallonia under a French monarch and aristocracy, the country has never really fit together. Dutch-speaking Flanders' long struggle for independence hit a dark patch when many Flemings fought with Nazi Germany during World War II.

The sudden popularity of the New Flemish Alliance is attributable to several factors. Traditional linguistic divisions have sharpened in recent years and been complemented by the increasing frustration of wealthy Flanders at having to bail out the far-less prosperous Wallonia, which has been dogged for some time by deindustrialization and internal corruption. Meanwhile, the New Flemish Alliance is notable for its commitment to European integration and attempt to shed the racism of prior Flemish nationalism. Indeed, the motto of the party's platform translates roughly to “Needed in Flanders. Useful in Europe.” With Brussels, the seat of the E.U., so integrated into the supra-national body, it is easy to see how Flemish independence seems sensible and reasonable.

The argument for Scottish independence from Britain is, likewise, by no means a new one. But nationalism today influences Scottish politics much more than it did only 15 years ago. In 1997, the Scottish public voted overwhelmingly in favour of the devolution of many powers to Scotland, away from London, and after 2007 elections, the Scottish National Party managed to form a government, leaving the long-term future of the U.K. in unprecedented uncertainty. This was contrary to Tony Blair's expectation that devolution would help kill off Scottish nationalism.

Defying stereotypes of nationalist ideology by advocating a liberal philosophy, the SNP stands for an independent Scotland further integrating itself within the E.U. The party supported the Euro from the start, and its governing administration has attempted to define Scotland as a humane and peaceful society, preparing to release the Libyan terrorist Abdul al-Megrahi while vociferously opposing Britain's role in the Iraq War. At an electoral level, the Nationalists have set themselves against the populist rhetoric of the Labour Party and the sectarian tendency with which British Unionism can remain associated. It’s the type of nationalism Europe hasn’t seen in a very long time.

As the E.U. chips away at national sovereignty, with the introduction of the Euro in 2001 or the brand new appointments of a President and Foreign Minister (the former himself a Flemish Belgian) in late 2009, it naturally becomes harder and harder for countries like Belgium to maintain an already precarious national self-image. People who have always tended toward regional identities find it easier to do so as the E.U. diminishes the role of the nation both in popular imagination and in giving people a sense of safety. Earlier, in the last century, Scotland would have found splitting from England a daunting task. But the E.U. didn't really exist then as it does now. Today, belonging to an international union of half a billion people, especially one whose structure is designed to give small countries a say, actually allows groups to get more tribal, not less.

If you're an ardent British or Belgian unionist, it's not great news. Independence wouldn't be good for Scotland, while a Belgian break-up would be a disaster for Wallonia. All in all though, it's just another side-effect for a part of the world that could end up being far less stable in the coming decades than many in the United States expect.

Eli B. Martin ’13, a Crimson editorial writer, lives in Lowell House.